2015Da253177 Compensation for damages

Attached list of Plaintiffs is as shown in the list.

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2035360 Decided November 19, 2015

November 2017, 200

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court shall determine whether the assertion is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of the ideology of social justice and equity by free evaluation of evidence, taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the result of examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The facts duly confirmed by the court below that the court below did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (Article 432 of the same Act). The court below did not accept the plaintiffs' claim for tort liability as to the act of issuing the presidential emergency measures No. 9 and the investigation and trial under subparagraph 9 of the Emergency Measures Act, and (2) there is no evidence to acknowledge the tort, such as the court below's recognition in the investigation process of this case. However, there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge the tort due to the illegal inspection and detention after individual illegal acts or release in the investigation process, and the damage claim expired by prescription and the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription does not constitute abuse of rights.

The part of the ground of appeal disputing the fact-finding that is the basis of the judgment of the court below is nothing more than an error of the judgment of the court below which actually belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, while examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the presidential emergency measure No. 9 and the illegal act under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, the public official’s intentional or negligent act under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, and the abuse of rights against the defense of extinctive prescription, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to logical and empirical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da31018, Jun. 11, 2004; 2013Da217962, Oct. 27, 2014)

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Note Justice Kim Gin-deok

Justices Kim Jae-han

Justices Park Il-san