beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s KRW 31,052,560 for the Plaintiff and its related costs from March 10, 2017 to August 2019.
Reasons
1. The scope of adjudication by this court is considered ex officio;
The plaintiff made a statement in the first instance court on April 9, 2019, that made it clear that the plaintiff primarily claimed the state compensation under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act due to the public official's intentional or negligent act, and as a preliminary claim for the state compensation under Article 5 of the same Act due to the defect in the public structure.
The above two claims may be brought by combining the so-called “substigative preliminary claims” that the parties have selective relations with each other in terms of their nature, upon filing a lawsuit in the form of a consolidation of the primary and conjunctive claims, only the order and scope of the adjudication of the lawsuit. In addition, where the primary claims are not fully accepted, the plaintiff may bring a lawsuit by combining them with the purport that it is possible to judge the conjunctive claims within the scope of the amount not accepted from the primary claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da35675, Dec. 24, 2014).
On the other hand, in the case of the primary and preliminary consolidation, several claims are indivisible in one litigation procedure, and where no judgment is rendered on the conjunctive claims while rejecting the main claims, if an appeal is filed against the judgment, the conjunctive claims whose judgment was omitted shall also be transferred to the appellate court, and such parts shall not be deemed as being pending in the original trial because they fall under the omission of the judgment.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da2253 delivered on November 16, 2000, etc.). However, the first instance court accepted part of the Plaintiff’s primary claim under Paragraph (1) of the same Article, and ruled that “the Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed” under Paragraph (2) of the same Article, while the Plaintiff’s assertion based on Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act is recognized on the ground that the Defendant’s liability for damages under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act is recognized.