본문 바로가기
  • Home

A Comparative Study on National Compensation for Judicial Action

  • Legal Theory & Practice Review
  • Abbr : LTPR
  • 2018, 6(1), pp.305-322
  • Publisher : The Korea Society for Legal Theory and Practice Inc.
  • Research Area : Social Science > Law

Kim Sung Ryul 1 Joung Soon Hyoung 2

1금강대학교
2광주여자대학교

Candidate

ABSTRACT

Article 29 (1) of the Korean Constitution generally recognizes the liability of the state or public organization for illegal acts. In addition, Article 2 (1) of the National Compensation Act stipulates that the state or municipal governments are liable to pay damages when a civil servant or a person who is commissioned to conduct government affairs causes damage to others intentionally or by negligent act in violation of laws and ordinances, or when they are liable for compensation in accordance with Automobile Compensation Guarantee Act. However, the Supreme Court has determined that it can only recognize cases where there is a special circumstance that the judge is recognized to have unfairly exercised the jurisdiction granted to him, such as conducting the jurisdiction for illegal or unjustifiable purposes in relation to national compensation for operation of jurisdiction, and thus the scope of recognition has been interpreted in a very limited sense in reality. This Supreme Court ruling is overly restricting national compensation for judicial action. In view of the fact that there have been victims who suffered from unfair trials in our past history, and in light of the lack of reflection and apology by the judiciary, there is a need for the responsibility of national compensation for jurisdiction to be extended.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.