logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.04.23 2014다89201
손해배상(기)
Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Reasons

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

1. In a case where a public prosecution was instituted based on evidence, etc. collected by a State agency due to an illegal act, etc. during the investigation process, and a conviction became final and conclusive, but the existence of grounds for retrial is found later and the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive in the retrial procedure, the obligee cannot expect the State to claim damages until the judgment of innocence becomes final and

Therefore, it is not permissible for the state, which is the debtor, to claim the completion of extinctive prescription as an abuse of rights.

However, in such a case, barring any special circumstance, a creditor shall exercise his/her right within a six-month period equivalent to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act from the final judgment of acquittal on which such disability was terminated, and shall be determined based on the date of filing a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages in principle as to whether the right was exercised within

However, even if a creditor did not file a lawsuit claiming compensation within such period, where a claim for criminal compensation under the Criminal Compensation and Restoration of Honor Act was filed, there are special circumstances to extend the "reasonable period" of the exercise of the right to prevent a defense of extinctive prescription. However, it can be deemed that the creditor filed a lawsuit claiming compensation within six months from the date on which the decision on criminal compensation becomes final and conclusive.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da201844, Dec. 12, 2013). Moreover, the exercise of the right of defense following the extinctive prescription constitutes an abuse of right and there is a high need to protect creditors as it constitutes an abuse of right, and there are circumstances such as receiving the repayment of the obligation by other creditors under the same conditions.

arrow