2020Da219690 Damage (as referred to)

Plaintiff 1 and 55 others

Attorney Lee Jae-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Plaintiff Intervenor 1 and 7 others

Attorney Lee Jae-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Lee Jae-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Na2036456 Decided February 7, 2020

April 8, 2021

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below determined, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, that the res judicata effect of the judgment rendered by the Seoul High Court 68Na1943 (hereinafter referred to as the "civil final and conclusive judgment") between the deceased Nonparty 1, the deceased Nonparty 2, the deceased Nonparty 3, the deceased Nonparty 4, the deceased Nonparty 5, and the deceased Nonparty 6 (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased") and the Defendant did not extend to the point that the disposition of distributing farmland against the deceased is null and void, and that the deceased suffered damage from the loss of the right to distribute farmland due to the Defendant's unlawful act in this case, even though he could have been able to obtain the execution of the procedure of transferring ownership of each of the distributed farmland by completing repayment payment to the Defendant after the closing date of the final and conclusive judgment.

The civil final and conclusive judgment of this case rejected the deceased's claim for ownership transfer registration against the defendant on the ground of farmland distribution disposition. Res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit, but does not affect the existence of legal relations on the premise thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da47361, Dec. 27, 2002; 2008Da36022, Mar. 12, 2009). The legal relations that affect res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment are limited to the existence of the deceased's claim for ownership transfer registration against the defendant, and the existence of the claim for ownership transfer registration of farmland distribution disposition or distribution right of the deceased's own land at issue in this case is merely a legal relationship that serves as the premise and thus does not affect the res judicata of the final

Although there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of this part of the judgment of the court below, the conclusion of the court below that deemed that the right to distribute the land of this case held by the deceased was lost due to the defendant's tort is justifiable. Therefore, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the subject matter of lawsuit and the res judicata, etc.,

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Plaintiffs, who were the deceased or their inheritors, suffered damages from each of the instant allocated farmland due to a series of illegal acts after May 1953 by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the said damages due to the tort committed by the public officials under its jurisdiction in relation to the performance of their duties pursuant to the former part of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the claim for damages caused by a tort, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the claim for damages caused by a tort,

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription based on its stated reasoning.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to extinctive prescription, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

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 Kim Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Min Min-young

The chief Justice Justice shall mobilized

Justices Noh Tae-ok