[1] The case holding that the Anti-Corruption Commission's measures against the Corruption Commission that accepted the report as a petition case on the grounds that it can decide solely on whether the report constitutes an act of corruption or a mere civil petition or petition, etc., and subsequently accepted the report as a final case, are justifiable

[2] The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the scope of authority and responsibility of the Anti-Corruption Commission is within the scope of the authority and responsibility of the Anti-Corruption Commission in light of the purport of the relevant law and the function of the Anti-Corruption Commission to clarify whether a warrant of vicarious administrative execution is forged by the head

[1] The case holding that the Anti-Corruption Commission's measures against the Corruption Commission that accepted the report as a petition case on the grounds that the Commission can decide solely on whether the report constitutes an act of corruption or a mere civil petition or petition, etc., and subsequently accepted the report as a final case, are justifiable

[2] The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the authority and responsibility of the Anti-Corruption Commission is within the scope of the authority and responsibility of the Anti-Corruption Commission in light of the purport of the relevant laws and regulations, the function of the Anti-Corruption Commission, etc. to clarify whether a warrant of vicarious administrative execution is forged by

[1] Articles 2 subparag. 3, 11, and 30 of the former Anti-Corruption Act (amended by Act No. 7612 of Jul. 21, 2005) / [2] Articles 2 subparag. 3, 11, and 30 of the former Anti-Corruption Act (amended by Act No. 7612 of Jul. 21, 2005), Articles 750 and 756 of the Civil Act, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Busan District Court Decision 2005Gau24192 decided August 10, 2005

may 12, 2006

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be recognized according to the statements in Gap 1, 2, 4, and 8.

A. On February 1, 2002, the Plaintiff issued on November 13, 1995, to the Anti-Corruption Commission (the National Integrity Commission of the present State), the Non-Party (name omitted), the head of the Housing Improvement Development Cooperative, by forging the Administrative Vicarious Execution Warrant (Evidence A5) under the name of the head of the Development Cooperative on November 16, 1995, and then removed the Plaintiff’s domicile, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the prosecution as 32511 against the Non-Party on 10 occasions on the charge of forging the public document, but the prosecutor in charge filed a complaint with the prosecution in 195 against the Non-Party, but the prosecutor in charge took the disposition of non-prosecution disposition or rejection. This constitutes an act of corruption in which the public prosecutor in charge failed to comply with the law, and thus, the prosecutor in charge and the Non-Party should be punished (hereinafter “the instant petition”).

B. Accordingly, the Anti-Corruption Commission notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff’s report was received as the petition No. 274 in March 20, 2002, and that “the Plaintiff’s petition is terminated because there is no additional measure taken by the Anti-Corruption Commission as a matter of appeal filed with the Supreme Court.”

C. On March 30, 2002, the Anti-Corruption Commission submitted a report on March 30, 2002 to the Commission on Prevention of Corruption on the purport that since the Plaintiff’s notification of the results of handling the said petition is not a matter of appeal, the said report is not a matter of appeal.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that public officials belonging to the Anti-Corruption Commission (1) responded to the plaintiff's above report on January 30, 2002, and the defendant, who is the employer of the public officials belonging to the Anti-Corruption Commission, has the duty to pay consolation money of KRW 20 million and delay damages to the plaintiff under the State Compensation Act, on the ground that (2) the plaintiff did not reply to the report on March 30, 2002 without any appeal by the Supreme Court. (3) since the vicarious administrative execution warrant (Evidence A5) was committed an unlawful act, such as investigating and disclosing the forged fact by the non-party, the plaintiff is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 20 million and delay damages to the plaintiff under the State Compensation Act.

3. Determination

A. The Anti-Corruption Commission may decide, in accordance with the guidelines formulated in accordance with the purpose and purport of the Anti-Corruption Act, whether the content of the report constitutes an act of corruption or simple civil petition or petition. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s filing of the Plaintiff’s filing of the petition with the competent court and concluded the report. In addition, in the process of opposing the removal of houses by taking charge of the head of the publicity division of the tenant support committee corresponding to the above redevelopment association’s removal of houses, the Plaintiff was subject to criminal punishment by the non-party head of the redevelopment association as an act of interference with business, and thus, the police officers or witnesses involved in the criminal procedure repeatedly filed a false official document preparation, perjury, and criminal punishment for the crime of false accusation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff’s filing of the complaint is unlawful, and thus, the Plaintiff’s filing of the petition with the competent court for national compensation for the reason that it was not unlawful. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s filing of the petition with the Anti-Corruption Commission is obviously repeated, and the appeal cannot be concluded.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that notification of the result of handling the petition of this case was prepared falsely is without merit.

B. In addition, the report on March 30, 2002 cannot be deemed as a report on an act of corruption separate from the contents of the petition of this case as shown in the above facts, and as long as the result of the handling of the petition of this case was notified, it is not necessary to give separate answers. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that there was an obstacle to the plaintiff's exercise of rights because the Anti-Corruption Commission did not give separate answers to the report, is without merit.

C. On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged that the administrative vicarious execution warrant (Evidence A5) is a tort for which the committee for prevention of corruption has not investigated and disclosed the forged facts by the non-party. However, it does not seem to be within the scope of the authority and responsibility of the committee for prevention of corruption in light of the purport of the Act on the Prevention of Corruption and the function of the committee for prevention of corruption, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong-sik (Presiding Judge)