긴급조치 제9호의 발령 및 적용·집행 행위로 인한 국가배상책임

박성구 사법발전재단 2022 사법 Vol.1 No.62

The Supreme Court opined that the Emergency Decree No. 9 is unconstitutional through Supreme Court en banc Order 2011Chogi689 dated April 18, 2013. According thereto, those who had been investigated or punished for violating the Emergency Decree No. 9 claimed compensation from the State, but the Supreme Court did not accept such claim for compensation from the State. Supreme Court Decision 2013Da217962 decided October 27, 2014 determined that viewing that the acts related to the duties of an investigative agency that advanced investigation and instituted a public prosecution by arresting and detaining a suspect without a warrant by Emergency Decree No. 9 or judicial acts related to the duties of a judge who rendered a guilty verdict by applying the Emergency Decree No. 9 correspond to torts arising from intention or negligence is difficult, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da48824 decided March 26, 2015 determined that the proclamation of the Emergency Decree No. 9 by the President cannot be seen to constitute any civil tort in the relationship with every citizen. A critical view to the effect that the State shall be liable to compensate for damage with respect to the Supreme Court precedents, which denies the liability of the State to compensate for damage, was predominant. To be specific, such critical view can be divided into the following two categories such as a view deeming the proclamation of the Emergency Decree No. 9 by the President as a unlawful act and a view admitting liability for an illegal act in respect of a series of acts performed by the State including the proclamation, application, and execution of an emergency measure. To the same effect, the judgment of he lower court which recognized a claim for compensation from the State on the grounds that the Emergency Decree No. 9 is unconstitutional was rendered. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court altered previous precedents, denying the State’s liability to compensate for damage arising from the Emergency Decree No. 9, by the assent of all Justices on the bench. The Majority Opinion of the subject case recognized a series of acts performed by the State including the proclamation, application, and execution of an emergency measure as illegal acts. Such view can be seen to have been formed in comprehensive consideration of the following circumstances: the consistency with previous decisions; that admitting such liability is not easy even when examining whether the State’s liability to compensate for damage arising from an emergency measure may be recognized on the same basis as legislation; that viewing a series of acts performed by the State as illegal acts accords with historical reality; and that the court has already adopted such legal doctrine as a ground to recognize the liability of the State to compensate for damage in the past human rights violation cases. A view recognizing a series of acts performed by the State including the proclamation, application, and execution of an emergency measure as illegal acts has a practical meaning that the liability of the State to compensate for damage can be admitted even where recognizing the liability of the State to compensate for damage arising from an individual act is difficult. In addition thereto, whether an unlawful act committed by the President and a judge may be constituted became an issue in the subject case. The Majority Opinion reserved its judgment thereon. As long as a series of acts performed by the State including the proclamation, application, and execution of an emergency measure are deemed illegal acts, this may mean that whether the proclamation of an emergency measure by the President or judicial acts related to the duties of a judge may constitute independent torts does not need to be determined. However, the Opinion concurring with the Majority Opinion by Justice Min You-sook refuted the Concurring Opinion admitting illegal acts of the President or a judge as below by viewing ... 대법원은 2013. 4. 18. 자 2011초기689 전원합의체 결정으로 긴급조치 제9호가 위헌이라고 밝혔다. 그에 따라 긴급조치 제9호 위반 혐의로 수사를 받거나 그로 인하여 처벌을 받았던 사람들은 국가배상을 청구하였는데, 대법원은 국가배상청구를 받아들이지 않았다. 대법원 2014. 10. 27. 선고 2013다217962 판결은 긴급조치 제9호에 의하여 영장 없이 피의자를 체포·구금하여 수사를 진행하고 공소를 제기한 수사기관의 직무행위나 긴급조치 제9호를 적용하여 유죄판결을 선고한 법관의 재판상 직무행위가 고의 또는 과실에 의한 불법행위에 해당한다고 보기 어렵다고 하였고, 대법원 2015. 3. 26. 선고 2012다48824 판결은 대통령의 긴급조치 제9호의 발령이 국민 개개인에 대한 관계에서 민사상 불법행위를 구성한다고 볼 수 없다고 하였다. 국가배상책임을 부정하는 대법원 판례에 대해서는 국가배상책임이 인정되어야 한다는 취지의 비판적인 견해가 지배적이었다. 구체적으로는 대통령의 긴급조치 발령이 불법행위가 된다고 보는 견해와 긴급조치의 발령 및 적용·집행이라는 일련의 국가작용에 대해 불법행위 책임을 인정하는 견해로 나눌 수 있다. 같은 취지에서 긴급조치 제9호가 위헌임을 이유로 국가배상청구를 인정한 하급심판결이 선고되기도 하였다. 이러한 상황에서 대법원 전원합의체는 일치하여 긴급조치 제9호로 인한 피해에 대하여 국가배상책임을 부정한 종전 판례를 변경하였다. 대상판결 다수의견은 긴급조치 발령 및 적용·집행이라는 일련의 국가작용을 불법행위로 인정하였다. 그 이유는 기존 판시와의 정합성, 긴급조치를 입법행위와 동일한 기준으로 국가배상책임 인정 여부를 살펴보더라도 책임을 인정하는 것이 용이하지 않다는 점, 일련의 국가작용을 불법행위라고 보는 것이 역사적 실질에 부합한다는 점, 법원이 과거사 사건에서 국가배상책임을 인정하는 근거로 이미 이러한 법리를 채택해 왔다는 점 등을 고려한 것으로 볼 수 있다. 긴급조치의 발령 및 적용·집행이라는 일련의 국가작용으로서 불법행위를 인정하는 견해는 개개의 행위에 대하여 국가배상책임이 인정하기 어려운 경우에도 국가배상책임을 인정할 수 있다는 실천적인 의미를 가진다. 그 밖에 대상판결에서는 대통령 및 법관의 불법행위 성립 여부가 문제 되었다. 다수의견은 그에 대한 판단을 유보하였다. 긴급조치 발령 및 적용·집행이라는 일련의 국가작용을 불법행위로 인정하는 이상, 대통령의 긴급조치 발령이나 법관의 재판상 직무행위가 독립적인 불법행위를 구성하는지 여부에 대해서 판단할 필요가 없다는 것일 수 있다. 다만 다수의견에 대한 대법관 민유숙의 보충의견은 아래와 같이 대통령 또는 법관의 불법행위를 인정하는 별개의견에 대해서 대통령의 불법행위 책임이 인정될 수 없고, 법관의 재판행위에 대해서도 독립적으로 불법행위를 구성하지 않는다고 논박한다. 대법관 김재형의 별개의견은 대통령의 불법행위를 인정할 수 있다는 입장이지만, 긴급조치 제9호의 발령행위만으로는 현실적 손해가 발생하였다고 볼 수 없고 이어진 수사와 재판으로 손해가 현실적으로 발생하였으므로, 긴급조치의 발령·적용·집행을 불법행위로 인정할 수 있다고 한다. 이때 민법 제760조 제2항 규정을 유추하여 공무원의 고의 또는 과실의 증명이 완화된다고 한다. 법관의 재판행위에 대해서는 독립적으로 불법행위를...

Novel plastic hinge modification factors for damaged RC shear walls with bending performance

Komarizadehasl, Seyedmilad,Khanmohammadi, Mohammad Techno-Press 2021 Advances in concrete construction Vol.12 No.4

This paper introduces several new damage states for shear walls with flexural behavior damaged in an earthquake. These damage states are deducted by carefully interpretation of reported available test results of shear walls in the literature. Moreover, two methods for obtaining the plastic hinge modification factors of strength, stiffness and ductility capacity of the damaged shear walls with the flexural behavior are presented. A method based on secant stiffness at maximum displacement of each cycle of observed damage and the second method uses the reloading stiffness of the hysteresis curves consistent with damage levels. The later method introduced in this research is more reasonable for obtaining modification factors among the introduced methods. Using these factors, a reliable residual capacity for damaged structures can be assessed and the proper seismic retrofitting method can be followed. In this research, the effects of damages caused by various experimental tests have been studied on 43 reinforced concrete shear walls with flexural behavior. By introducing and describing the bending performance's damage levels, given the shear wall's observable condition such as cracks' width, concrete spalling and crushing, conditions of longitudinal and transvers rebars, 10 damage levels are introduced. The factors of modification of stiffness, strength, and the acceptable range of ductility of the member (𝜆k, 𝜆Q, and 𝜆D) were proposed for each level of damage. The results show that almost across all damage levels, the damage grew with increased drift. Nonetheless, stiffness and ductility modification factors are constant during the first damage states; they decrease dramatically after the third damage state (DS4). However, the reduction of the strength decreased gradually as of the fourth damage state. the results presented in current research are more reliable estimation of reduction factors in comparison with current approaches.

공법상 개념으로서의 국가배상법상 ‘손해’ ― 국가배상책임의 본질에 따른 고유한 법개념 정립을 위한 시론 ―

김혜진(Kim Hyejin) 한국공법학회 2023 공법연구 Vol.52 No.2

Since the state liability is understood as the states own responsibility under the Constitution, the State Liability Act must be understood from perspective according to the purpose and nature of state liability, not civil liability. Even though the requirements of state liability use the same expressions as civil law, they must be interpreted as a ‘sui generis’ public law concepts. Just like the notions such as ‘intention/negligence’ and ‘violation of laws’, which have already been discussed a lot, ‘damage’ also has an autonomous nature. If the very essence and function of state responsibility is for the state to fairly compensate for the damage caused by its own actions, then ‘damage’ in this case is broadly defined as ‘disadvantages in the normative sense that the state needs to compensate for as its own responsibility.’ Disadvantages in this normative sense naturally include all disadvantages arising from public and private law interests, and there is no need for the infringed interests to be evaluated as specific subjective rights in order to be evaluated as disadvantages. The State Liability Act is not intended to regulate the tort between individual public officials and citizens, but begins from the perspective that if there is an illegality in the process of state action, it is justifiable from the perspective of the community to compensate for the disadvantages. Therefore, excluding damages from a purely factual perspective and entirely public damages that cannot be attributed to individuals, the other normative disadvantages are, in principle, eligible to be included as ‘damages’ under the State Laibility Act. Problems that may arise from a broadly conceived concept of damages under the State Liability Act, can be alleviated mostly by limiting the other nature of the damage itself, such as individuality, directness, and specificity. Then, damages will naturally be categorized according to their nature, and the burden of judgment in practice will be reduced. In principle, the burden of proof as to whether such ‘damage’ is occurred is placed on the victim, and the Judge can flexibly considers the specificity of the facts and the victims subjective status at the stage of determining causality and calculating the amount of damage. It can also reduce the financial burden. As a result, even if the amount of damages is set at a symbolic and low level, it should be evaluated that the countrys mistakes were confirmed and impeached. This difference in understanding may symbolize the essential difference between public law and private law.

행정절차 참여권의 침해와 국가배상책임 -대법원 2021. 7. 29. 선고 2015다221668 판결에 대한 분석을 중심으로

박설아 사법발전재단 2023 사법 Vol.1 No.65

최근에, 국가배상청구소송과 행정소송 간의 관계를 돌아보게 하는 대법원판결이 선고되었는바, 이를 소개하고 분석하려는 것이 이 글의 목적이다. 해당 판결의 사안에서는 폐기물 매립장 설치와 같은 공익사업을 시행하는 지방자치단체가 사업 시행과정에서 법령상 요구되는 주민의견 수렴절차를 누락하고(심지어 주민의견 수렴절차를 진행한 것처럼 관련 서류를 위조하여) 해당 시설을 설치·운영한 것에 대하여 해당 시설 인근지역의 주민들에게 그 지방자치단체가 정신적 손해배상책임을 부담하는지가 쟁점이 되었다. 대법원은 이 판결에서 그동안 국가배상책임의 제한 법리로 사용되었던 ‘객관적 정당성 상실 여부’를 판단 기준으로 적용하는 대신, 지역 주민들의 행정절차 참여권과 같은 행정법상 소위 ‘절차상 권리’의 침해에 대해서는 곧바로 국가나 지방자치단체가 주민들에게 정신적 손해에 대한 배상의무를 부담한다고 단정할 수는 없고, 주민들의 절차적 권리 침해로 인한 정신적 고통이 남아있다고 볼만한 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에만 국가나 지방자치단체가 위자료 배상책임을 부담한다는 취지에서 ‘원칙적 부정, 예외적 인정’의 입장을 개진하였다. 이러한 대법원판결의 입장은 그동안 국가배상책임 성부와 관련하여 학계에서 집중적인 논의의 대상이 되었던 여러 쟁점들 외에 새로운 논점을 추가로 제시한 것이라는 점에서 흥미롭다. 특히 그 판시 법리 중에서 ‘행정소송을 통하여 처분이 취소되거나 처분의 무효를 확인하는 판결이 확정된 경우 등’에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 ‘절차적 권리 침해로 인한 정신적 고통에 대한 배상은 인정되지 않는다.’고 하여 행정청의 위법행위로 인한 국민들의 권리구제방법으로 행정소송을 통한 권리구제와 국가배상청구소송을 통한 권리구제의 관계를 생각해 보게 하는 내용이 포함되었다는 점에서 관심을 끈다. 그러나 이와 같은 관점은 행정소송을 통한 권리구제를 원칙으로 하는 독일법체제와 비교해 보더라도 훨씬 더 엄격한 관점에서 관련 주민들의 국가배상청구 가능성을 제한하는 법리이다. 오히려, 독일 법제와 달리 비재산적 손해배상을 일반적으로 인정하는 우리 법제에 따르면 국가배상법 제2조에서 규정하는 국가배상책임의 요건, 즉 공무원의 고의 또는 과실에 따른 위법행위 그리고 이로 인한 손해의 발생이라는 요건이 갖추어졌다면 국가배상책임을 인정하지 않을 이유가 없다. 배상되어야 하는 손해의 관점에서 볼 때, 절차적 권리의 침해가 문제 되는 모든 사건에서 해당 절차의 누락을 이유로 비재산적 손해배상을 인정할 수 있다고 단정하기는 어렵다. 그러나 관련 법령에서 절차적 권리를 보장한 것에 사익보호성이 인정되고, 당사자들이 행정결정에 참여하여 의견을 개진할 ‘기회의 상실’ 그 자체만으로도 손해의 발생을 인정할 수 있으며, 더 나아가 주민들의 자기결정권의 침해라고 볼 여지도 크고, 행정행위의 위법성이 중대명백한 경우라면 위법한 행정행위로 발생한 정신적 고통에 대한 손해배상은 인정되어야 할 것이다. 국가나 지방자치단체의 재정적 부담을 우려한다면 책임의 성립 자체를 부정할 것이 아니라 배상범위를 제한하는 등의 방식으로 해결하는 것이 더 적절한 방법이다. 항고소송을 통한 권리의 구제와 국가배상제도는 그 취지를 달리 하며 항고소송을 통하여 관련 행정처분이 취소되거... This article intends to introduce and discuss a recent Supreme Court decision that has us reflecting on the history of the interaction between administrative litigation and state compensation claims. The following serves as the foundation for the decision. A local authority that carried out a public project neglected to follow the legal process for getting locals' opinions while carrying out the project. The local government was responsible for the facility's installation and operation, and it also caused non-monetary damages to the nearby inhabitants. The main question was whether the government was accountable for the losses. Rather than relying on the decision regarding “whether objective legitimacy has been lost”, which has been utilized as a legal precept to restrict state liability, the Supreme Court made a declaration regarding the violation of administrative law's “procedural rights”, which include the right of local residents to engage in administrative processes. The Supreme Court expressed a position of “denial in principle” to the effect that the organization bears the responsibility for compensation. In light of this, it is not immediately possible to conclude that the state or local government bears the obligation to compensate the residents for mental damages. Rather, this obligation can only be made in exceptional circumstances where it is evident that the residents' mental suffering is still a result of the infringement of their procedural rights. The stance of this Supreme Court decision is intriguing because, in addition to addressing a number of topics that have been the focus of intense scholarly debate over the state's obligation to provide compensation, it also offers a fresh perspective. In particular, liability for mental suffering resulting from the violation of procedural rights is not recognized unless there are exceptional circumstances, according to the judgment's jurisprudence, “in cases where a disposition is revoked through administrative litigation or a judgment confirming the invalidity of a disposition is finalized.” As a result, it catches our attention because it contains content that makes us consider the relationship between the remedy of rights through administrative litigation and the remedy of rights through lawsuits for state liability as a method of redressing the rights of the people due to illegal acts of administrative agencies. However, this point of view severely restricts the possibilities of asserting state accountability, even when compared to the German legal system, which is built on the notion of remedies through administrative litigation. Rather, the requirement for state liability stipulated in Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, that is, a public official's intentional or negligent illegal act and the resulting damage, is based on our legal system, which generally recognizes non-pecuniary damages rather than the German legal system. There is no reason not to recognize the State's liability if this is in place. In terms of compensable losses, it is difficult to establish that non-pecuniary damages can be recognized for failure to follow the necessary procedure in all circumstances when procedural rights are violated. However, where the protection of the parties' private interests is recognized in the relevant statutes and the parties are denied the opportunity to participate in administrative decisions and express their opinions, the occurrence of damage can be recognized only by the ‘loss of opportunity’ itself. Furthermore, if the illegality of the administrative conduct is significant and obvious, compensation for mental distress induced by the illegal act should be recognized. Limiting the establishment of state culpability because of concerns about the financial burden on state or local governments is undesirable in terms of practical rule of law and the demand for adequate remedies for people's rights.

Seismic vulnerability assessment criteria for RC ordinary highway bridges in Turkey

Ö. Avsar,A. Yakut 국제구조공학회 2012 Structural Engineering and Mechanics, An Int'l Jou Vol.43 No.1

One of the most important and challenging steps in seismic vulnerability and performance assessment of highway bridges is the determination of the bridge component damage parameters and their corresponding limit states. These parameters are very essential for defining bridge damage state as well as determining the performance of highway bridges under a seismic event. Therefore, realistic damage limit states are required in the development of reliable fragility curves, which are employed in the seismic risk assessment packages for mitigation purposes. In this article, qualitative damage assessment criteria for ordinary highway bridges are taken into account considering the critical bridge components in terms of proper engineering demand parameters (EDPs). Seismic damage of bridges is strongly related to the deformation of bridge components as well as member internal forces imposed due to seismic actions. A simple approach is proposed for determining the acceptance criteria and damage limit states for use in seismic performance and vulnerability assessment of ordinary highway bridges in Turkey constructed after the 1990s. Physical damage of bridge components is represented by three damage limit states: serviceability,damage control, and collapse prevention. Inelastic deformation and shear force demand of the bent components (column and cap beam), and superstructure displacement are the most common causes for the seismic damage of the highway bridges. Each damage limit state is quantified with respect to the EDPs: i.e. curvature and shear force demand of RC bent components and superstructure relative displacement.

Seismic vulnerability assessment criteria for RC ordinary highway bridges in Turkey

Avsar, O.,Yakut, A. Techno-Press 2012 Structural Engineering and Mechanics, An Int'l Jou Vol.43 No.1

One of the most important and challenging steps in seismic vulnerability and performance assessment of highway bridges is the determination of the bridge component damage parameters and their corresponding limit states. These parameters are very essential for defining bridge damage state as well as determining the performance of highway bridges under a seismic event. Therefore, realistic damage limit states are required in the development of reliable fragility curves, which are employed in the seismic risk assessment packages for mitigation purposes. In this article, qualitative damage assessment criteria for ordinary highway bridges are taken into account considering the critical bridge components in terms of proper engineering demand parameters (EDPs). Seismic damage of bridges is strongly related to the deformation of bridge components as well as member internal forces imposed due to seismic actions. A simple approach is proposed for determining the acceptance criteria and damage limit states for use in seismic performance and vulnerability assessment of ordinary highway bridges in Turkey constructed after the 1990s. Physical damage of bridge components is represented by three damage limit states: serviceability, damage control, and collapse prevention. Inelastic deformation and shear force demand of the bent components (column and cap beam), and superstructure displacement are the most common causes for the seismic damage of the highway bridges. Each damage limit state is quantified with respect to the EDPs: i.e. curvature and shear force demand of RC bent components and superstructure relative displacement.

성폭력 2차피해에 대한 국가손해배상소송의 쟁점

이미경(Lee, Mi-Kyoung) 한국피해자학회 2011 被害者學硏究 Vol.19 No.1

This study examines disparities between legal procedures and realities through issues analyses of damage claim against state concerning secondary victimization which victims of sexual violence experience in criminal procedures. For this, case study is used as methodology and it is analyzed damage claim against state suit files(total 6 suit cases and 11 victim cases). The lawsuits brought by the victims who experience unfair human rights violations during criminal procedures against the state are basic rights of the victims, simultaneously they are the only formal procedures victims could take. The analyses of the lawsuit files have meaning for them to argue their rights affirmatively in the actions. Above all, in this study, it is analyzed illegality judgement standards of public officials focused on cases of damage claims against state. Public official's judgement standards are main issues of the claims concerning secondary victimization in criminal procedures. Current judgement standards, which mean "it is recognized in the case of distinctively unfair or hardly affirmation of the rationality," omit suffering of the victims and distinctiveness of sexual violence damage regarding secondary victimization. In addition, though the victims are injured parties of the accidents, commonly they are marginalized in the criminal procedures. It means that they are treated as the weak who need to be cared carefully by courts and law enforcement agencies based on the law and policies for protection of victims, rather than the subjects who have human rights. Actions brought by the victims against the state with the respect to the secondary victimization have meaning as they question violations of their rights by the unfair execution of state power and furthermore, require damage claim to the state. However, it would be needed subsequent studies regarding damage claims against the state can contribute to expansion of victims's rights or they only regenerate damages again within current law schemes. This study is detailed monitoring to the implementation of victims' rights in law and comments for the re-constitution of victim's rights in it.

The different application of the statute of limitation in the government’s liability action in Korea and the U.S.

Ha Myoung Jeong(정하명) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2019 法學硏究 Vol.30 No.1

우리나라에서는 국가배상소송에서 공무원의 불법행위에 의한 손해배상과 영조물의 설치관리의 하자에 의한 손해배상책임을 인정하고 있다. 헌법에 근거한 국가배상법에서 공무원의 불법행위에 의한 국가 또는 지방자치단체의 손해배상책임을 인정하고 있는 실정이다. 이러한 불법행위에 의한 손해배상소송에서 최근에는 소멸시효의 적용을 들러싼 여러 가지 법리들이 소개되어 공무원의 불법행위에 대한 손해배상의 범위를 점점 확대해 가면서 피해자의 권리구제을 확대해가는 경향이 있다. 특히 민법에 규정하고 있는 신뢰보호의 원칙과 권리남용금지의 원칙을 행정법의 일반법원리로 받아들여서 국가배상소송에서 소멸시효를 주장하는 것이 이러한 법원리들에 어긋나지 않는다고 보고 있다. 우리 대법원은 간첩조작 사건에 근거한 국가배상소송에서 국가가 제시한 소멸시효 완성의 주장을 받아들이지 않아 국가배상이 가능하다고 판단하였다. 미국에서는 공무원에 불법행위에 대한 손해배상책임은 연방불법행위청구법(FTCA)에서 인정하고 있지만 많은 예외가 인정되어서 공무원의 재량적 정책판단을 한 경우에는 원칙적으로 손해배상책임은 인정하지 않는 것으로 알려져 있다. 연방공무원 개인에 대한 헌법위반을 근거로 한 손해배상청구소송을 1971년 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics(403 U.S. 388, 389 (1971))에서 인정하여 연방공무원이 더욱 기본권 존중의무를 존중하게 하고 위법행위를 억제하는 효과적인 방안으로 비벤스청구(Bivens Claim)를 인정하고 있다. 미국 연방법에서 2년이라는 비교적 단기를 연방정부의 대한 불법행위소송의 소멸시효를 규정하고 있지만 “법원사기”(fraud upon the court)라는 특정범죄가 이루어진 경우에는 법원의 판결이 무효로 되고 그로 인한 연방정부를 대한 손해배상소송에서도 소멸시효의 완성을 주장할 수 없는 것으로 파악하고 있다. 국가배상법체계가 전혀 다름에도 불구하고 고문에 의한 증거조작에 의한 간첩죄 사건의 재심에 이어진 국가배상판결에 우리 대법원에서 채택하고 있는 소멸시효의 배척의 법리와 미국 연방법원에서 인정하고 있는 “법원사기”(fraud upon the court)와 매우 유사한 측면이 있어 참고할 만하다. Whoever causes losses to or inflicts injuries on another by an unlawful act shall compensate for the victims. Tort law is aimed to vindicate individual rights and redress private harms. Tort claims compensate for invasions of legal rights the courts believe are harmful. The usual tort case is an action for damages to compensate for harm that has already been inflicted. The Korean Constitution provides that the people have fundamental rights to compensation for injuries by the State. The purpose of Article 29 of the Korean Constitution is to allow an injured person -- a person who has suffered damage through an illegal act of any public official -- to sue the government or public officials for monetary compensation. The State Compensation Act proscribes the specific condition of government liability. There are two different kinds of liability; personal liability and public structure liability. The Article 2 of the State Compensation Act proscribes personal liability. The Article 5 of the State Compensation Act proscribes public structure liability. The State bears liability for damages to the victim caused by public officers who violated their duties. Damages for tort claims should be equipped with the some requirements. There are damages by the illegal acts by public officials. In general, in the lawsuit to seek compensation for damage arising from unlawful acts, the burden of proving the causation between the act and the injury is borne by the injured. The Korean Civil Code provides the principle of trust and good faith, and principle against abuse of rights. These principles would generally be applied in Administrative Laws and State Compensation Proceedings. The statute of limitation is one of affirmative defense. The government’s plea of the statute of limitation in State Compensation Proceedings is not against the principle of trust and good faith and the principle against abuse of rights. The widespread adoption of statute of limitations in state compensation suits would eventually lead to the State not being liable for damages, however. The Korean Supreme Court ruled that the plea of the statute of limitations ought to be dismissed because it was against the principle of good faith in fabricated torture case. It is arguably very similar with “fraud upon the court”exception of statute of limitations in the U.S. even though the Korean Supreme Court never mentioned it officially.

국제법상 기후변화피해책임

소병천(So, Byung Chun) 국제법평론회 2016 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.45

The issue of the ‘Loss & Damage’, which means injuries and harms from sudden and slow-onset events of climate change, has been one of the most debated topics in climate change talks. The core of the debates would be the international responsibility for the ‘Loss & Damage’ from the climate change actions. Small island developing states and least developed countries which are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change have insisted on the more financial contribution of the developed countries who are the main greenhouse gases emitting countries for the ‘Loss & Damage’. And they pushed strongly for the Paris Agreement to recognize the ‘Loss & Damage’ as a separate pillar of climate action in addition to the ‘Mitigation’ and the ‘Adaptation’. In turn, developed countries were reluctant to include any reference to the ‘Loss & Damage’ in the Paris Agreement, arguing the discussion should be put on hold until 2016, when the review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for the ‘Loss & Damage’ would be due. Finally, Paris Agreement of 2016 has an independent provision (article 8) regarding the ‘Loss & Damage’. However, Decision 1/CP21 clarifies that the inclusion of the ‘Loss & Damage’ in the Paris Agreement does not provide any basis for liability. It seems to be amicable compromise but remained controversial in the further negotiation in the financial arrangement in adaptation capacity building for the developing countries. In terms of the state responsibility, it is necessary to review the ‘Loss & Damage’ from the climate change. This paper explores what was agreed in Paris Agreement in light of the history of negotiations on the ‘Loss & Damage’ under the UNFCCC and considers what the Paris Agreement means for action on ‘Loss & Damage’ going forward. And it examines the what responsibility should be addressed for the ‘Loss & Damage’ based on the ILC works such as 2001 Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Draft articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, and 2006 Draft principles on the Allocation of Loss in the case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities. Finally, this paper concludes that the approach of the Paris agreement to handle the responsibility is on the right track

초국경적 환경오염피해 방지를 위한 환경법적 과제 - 초미세먼지의 유입과 폐기물 수입 문제의 대응방안을 중심으로 -

함태성 경희대학교 법학연구소 2014 경희법학 Vol.49 No.4

This paper aims to review the legal study on the prevention of transboundary environmental pollution damage under environmental law. Transboundary environmental pollution damage is one of the most arguable topics in international law. Principle 2 of Rio Declaration says “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” This means the state responsibility to ensure that one state’s activities do not cause damage to the environment of other States. Today, Korea is facing the important problems of transboundary environmental pollution damage, such as PM(Particulate Matter) from China, waste imports from Japan. To solve transboundary environmental pollution damage cases, the most important sources of law is international conventions and international customary laws. But Korea do not contract international convention of PM(Particulate Matter) from China or waste imports from Japan. Furthermore, there are limits of international law, such as, responsible party, proof of causal relation, coverage of environmental damages, standards and procedures related to measure of damage, remedies, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to hold China or Japan responsible for transboundary environmental pollution damage in international law. We should find solution in domestic law and policy at the same time. First of all, to solve PM from China, it is necessary to find environmental cooperation system with China. Both nations have to develop cooperative relation from a low level to a high level. Second of all, the control of waste import from Japan, which is a possibility of radioactive contamination, become a important policy task of korea government after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Now, large amounts of recyclable waste are imported from Japan, and there is still a possibility of radioactive contamination. Non-governmental organization calls for a ban on the import of radioactive contamination waste. Korea government need to improve related legislation and to integrate radioactivity control that is separated by each department. 우리나라의 경우 이미 오래전부터 중국의 황사가 국민의 건강과 환경에 피해를 주고 있었고, 오늘날은 중국으로부터의 미세먼지와 초미세먼지 유입이 사회적 문제로 대두되고 있다. 또한 일본 후쿠시마 원전사고 이후에는 대기 또는 해양을 통한 방사능오염물질의 국내 유입을 우려하는 목소리도 커지고 있다. 국경을 넘어 우리나라로 이동하는 오염물질들은 국민의 건강과 국내 환경에 직접적인 피해를 주기도 하고, 국내 오염물질과 상호 상승작용을 일으켜 그 피해를 더 확대시킬 수 있다. 초국경적 환경오염피해 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 국제법적 대응과 국내법적 대응이 함께 이루어져야 한다. 국제법적으로는 초국경적 환경오염피해에 대하여 오염원인국가에게 국가책임을 물을 수 있는가가 핵심내용이 된다. 그러나 국가책임을 인정하기 위한 법리적 문제에서 부터 인과관계 인정을 위한 환경데이터의 정확성 등 기술적 문제에까지 많은 쟁점과 논란들이 여전히 해결해야 할 과제로 남겨져 있다. 이러한 점 때문에 ‘예방’과 ‘협력’을 주된 지도 원리로 하는 관련국간의 ‘환경협약’의 체결이 실질적인 해결방안으로 제시되고 있다. 이는 우리나라 환경법과 환경정책의 주요 현안이기도 하다. 초미세먼지 문제의 대응방안과 관련하여서는 실효성있는 환경협력 방안이 마련될 필요가 있고, 이와 함께 국내 초미세먼지 정책을 강화할 필요가 있다. 한편, 폐기물 수입 문제의 대응방안과 관련하여서는 우선 사전배려의 원칙에 입각한 대응이 필요하다. 그리고 관련 법령을 보완하고 부처간 협력체제를 유지하는 것이 필요하다. 나아가 이러한 초국경적 환경오염문제를 해결해 가는데 있어서는 우리나라의 중견국가로서의 역할제고가 필요가 있다고 본다. 또한 현재 초미세먼지 피해의 경우나 일본산 폐기물 수입의 경우 지역적 특성을 보이고 있으므로, 가장 먼저 현장에서 사안을 다루게 되는 해당 지자체가 지역적 특성을 고려한 신속한 조치를 취할 수 있는 지휘체계와 권한을 갖도록 하는 방안을 검토할 필요가 있다.