법관의 재판에 대한 국가배상책임 = State Compensation Liablity for Illegal Judicial Decision

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The state compensation liability for judges has been recognized under more stringent limitations compared to general administrative actions. However, in a recent state compensation case related to emergency measures, the court acknowledged the state's responsibility, recognizing the breach of objective duty and the loss of objective legitimacy in view of a whole series of state actions. In light of this Supreme Court decision, the perspective on the state compensation liability for judges should be shifted from the idea that the state is responsible for the subjective illegality of individual judges to the idea that the state itself is held accountable for defects in the entire judicial system. In this case, manifest breach should be evaluated as the breach of objective duty and the loss of objective legitimacy in itself. However, to ensure the independence of judges, the recognition of their individual liability needs to be limited. The criteria for acknowledging the judge's individual liability should be separate from those of state compensation liability, and the criteria for limiting judges' liability should not be set the same as the criteria for limiting state liability.
Meanwhile, in the separate opinion of the Supreme Court's decision on emergency measures, it was considered that the fact that the court did not review the constitutionality of the emergency measures would be an independent cause of the court's liability, while the supplementary opinion on the majority opinion showed that it could not impose an obligation on the courts to request review of unconstitutional laws. At the time of the emergency measures, the obligation to request of review could be recognized in that the parties could not directly claim to the Constitutional Court. However, under the current system, unlike the time of the emergency measures, the party can directly request for a constitutional review of unconstitutional laws through a constitutional complaint. Therefore, it cannot be said that the failure to request by the court alone immediately establishes state compensation liability for the court.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김석현, "？재판의 거부？의 개념과 그 현대적 의의" 대한국제법학회 51 (51): 213-244, 2006

2 정재헌, "헌법소원제도에 대한 새로운 고찰 - 위헌심사형 헌법소원제도의헌법적 문제점을 중심으로" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 187-233, 2015

3 엄준현, "한 일 및 한 중 일 투자협정의 투자자-국가 분쟁해결제도 연구: 국내법원판결에 관한 판정례를 중심으로" 대외경제정책연구원 2019

4 이재민, "조약상 의무 이행과 사법부― 대법원 강제동원 판결에 대한 한일 투자협정의 적용 가능성 ―" 서울국제법연구원 20 (20): 73-111, 2013

5 조영주, "재판의 거부와 국내구제수단완료의 원칙" 대한국제법학회 59 (59): 241-269, 2014

6 이영무, "유신헌법하의 긴급조치와 국가배상 청구의 요건" 법학연구소 42 (42): 117-151, 2022

7 정지원, "유럽연합법상 입법부작위로 인한 국가배상책임에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 2018

8 윤진수, "위헌인 대통령의 긴급조치 발령이 불법행위를 구성하는지 여부 - 대법원 2015. 3. 26. 선고 2012다48824ﾠ판결 -" 한국민사법학회 81 : 93-154, 2017

9 최광률, "위헌법률심판의 제청절차" 38 (38):

10 방승주, "사후적으로 위헌선언된 긴급조치에 대한 국가배상책임" 한국헌법학회 25 (25): 215-274, 2019

11 정계선, "법원의 헌법적 판단" 한국헌법학회 21 (21): 101-154, 2015

12 전극수, "법관의 재판에서의 불법행위에 대한 국가배상책임과 법관의 책임" 법학연구소 34 (34): 259-277, 2010

13 송덕수, "법관의 재판상 잘못과 국가배상책임" 한국민사법학회 (19) : 2001

14 이상해, "법관의 유럽공동체법 침해에 대한 회원국의 배상책임 - 유럽재판소의 소위 Köbler판결을 기초로 하여 -" 한국비교공법학회 12 (12): 349-379, 2011

15 이일세, "법관의 불법행위와 국가배상책임" 32 (32): 1999

16 김기창, "법관의 배상책임과 사법면책 : 영국의 경우" (41) : 2003

17 조동은, "미국 연방대법원의 위헌 판단 회피 원칙(Constitutional Avoidance)과 그 한국적 시사점 ― 법원의 헌법합치적 해석 및 위헌법률심판제청의 기준과 관련하여 ―" 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 26 (26): 39-102, 2018

18 이재승, "긴급조치의 청산법리" 민주주의법학연구회 (71) : 9-47, 2019

19 김중권, "긴급조치와 관련한 국가배상책임에서 재판상의 불법의 문제-대상판결: 대법원 2022.8.30. 선고 2018다212610전원합의체판결" 대한변호사협회 (510) : 109-124, 2022

20 박성구, "긴급조치 제9호의 발령 및 적용·집행 행위로 인한 국가배상책임" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 655-702, 2022

21 이혜민, "국제투자협정중재와 Denial of Justice" 서울대학교 대학원 2013

22 정태호, "국가배상법상의 유책요건은 위헌인가? - 부론: 위헌적 긴급조치에 대한 국가배상청구의 가능성에 대한 검토 -" 법학연구소 30 (30): 77-121, 2019

23 이은상, "국가배상법상 고의, 과실 요건과 권익구제방안-헌법재판소 2020. 3. 26.자 2016헌바55 등(병합) 결정" 한국행정판례연구회 27 (27): 143-176, 2022

24 鄭夏重, "法官의 裁判作用에 대한 國家賠償責任" 한국법학원 75 : 2003

25 박정훈, "國家賠償法의 改革 — 私法的 代位責任에서 公法的 自己責任으로 —" 행정법이론실무학회 (62) : 27-69, 2020

26 Krommendijk, "“Open sesame!”: Improving access to the ECJ by requiring national courts to reason their refusals to refer" 42 (42): 2017

27 박배근, "‘한국의 국제법 위반상태론’에 대한 국제법적 검토" 법학연구소 61 (61): 287-310, 2020

28 Varga, "Why is the Köbler Principle Not Applied in Practice?" 23 (23): 2016

29 Eliantonio, "The enforcement of EC rights against national authorities and the influence of Köbler and Kühne & Heitz on Italian administrative law: opening Pandora’s box?" 2023

30 Varga, "The effectiveness of the Köbler liability in national courts" Hart 2020

31 Kornezov, "The New Format of the Acte Clair Doctrine and its Consequences" 53 (53): 2016

32 Foster, "Striking a Balance between Investor protections and National Sovereignty : The Relevance of Local Remedies in Investment Treaty Arbitration" 49 (49): 2011

33 Davies, "State liability for judicial decisions in European Union and international law" 61 (61): 2012

34 Rodriguez, "State Liability for Judicial Acts in European Community Law: The Conceptual Weaknesses of the Functional Approach" 11 (11): 2005

35 Lacchi, "Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU" 16 (16): 2015

36 Groussot, "Res judicata in the Court of Justice case-law: balancing legal certainty with legality?" 3 (3): 2007

37 Demirkol, "Judicial Acts and Investment Treaty Arbitration" Cambridge University 2018

38 Terhechte, "Judicial Accountability and Public Liability The German “Judges Privilege” Under the Influence of European and International Law" 13 (13): 2012

39 Kriebaum, "Investment Arbitration - Rule of Law Demands of the Domestic Judiciary(Denial of Justice, Judicial Expropriation, Effective Means)"

40 Douglas, "International responsibility for domestic adjudication: denial of justice deconstructed" 63 (63): 2014

41 Anagnostaras, "Erroneous Judgments and the Prospect of Damages: The Scope of the Principle of Governmental Liability for Judicial Breaches" 31 (31): 2006

42 김두수, "EU法上 先決的 付託節次의 限界와 克服方案" 대한국제법학회 50 (50): 29-56, 2005

43 정성숙, "Denial of Justice(재판거부)와 투자자의 제소행태에 관한 연구" 법학연구소 36 (36): 147-178, 2020

44 Paulsson, "Denial of Justice in International Law" Cambridge University 2005

45 Demark, "Contemporary Issues regarding Member State Liability for Infringements of EU Law by National Courts" 4 : 2020

46 Scherr, "Comparative aspects of the application of the principle of State liability for judicial breaches" 12 (12): 2012