Whether it is necessary to implement the procedure under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act in case where a person files a lawsuit after the enforcement of the State Compensation Act with the fact that the illegal act occurred before the enforcement of the Act.

The State Compensation Act (Law No. 231 of September 8, 51) shall apply to cases where the cause of the tort occurred before the enforcement of the former State Compensation Act (Act No. 1899 of March 3, 67), and it is not necessary to have the State Compensation Act deliberated on the compensation even after filing a lawsuit after the enforcement of the former State Compensation Act.

Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, Rule 3 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Support for the promotion of the first instance, the second instance Gwangju District;

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

In regard to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim, the court below rejected the plaintiff's conjunctive claim on the premise that the plaintiff's claim in this case, which did not take the same procedure without undergoing the procedure under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, was illegal, even though the state public official's act in this case was in March 3, 1967 and became a cause for damages before the enforcement of the State Compensation Act (No. 1899 of the Act No. 1963, Mar. 3, 1967). However, it is reasonable to interpret that the case where the cause of the tort occurred before the enforcement of the State Compensation Act is not subject to the same Act, but subject to the former State Compensation Act, since the fact of the tort occurred before the enforcement of the State Compensation Act. Accordingly, even if a lawsuit was brought after the enforcement of the same Act, it is not subject to the application of the same Act, and therefore, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim part against the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

Justices Song Dong-dong et al. (Presiding Justice)