State Compensation System | Case Securing Dismissal of a 600 Million Won Reimbursement Claim

Let us examine the requirements for a claim for state compensation.

1. There must be an unlawful act in the course of official duties
A public official, while performing official duties, must have violated laws intentionally or negligently, and as a result harm to a citizen’s rights or legal interests must have occurred.

2. The state or a local government bears the liability for compensation
It is the state, not the individual public official, that becomes the subject of compensation.

3. Compensation is limited in special cases
For example, where a soldier or police officer suffers injury during combat or training, if compensation is received under other statutes, a separate claim for state compensation cannot be made.

1. Application to the Compensation Deliberation Council or filing a lawsuit directly is possible
The victim may apply to the Compensation Deliberation Council (the headquarters and district compensation deliberation councils under the Ministry of Justice), or may file a state compensation claim lawsuit directly with the civil court.

2. The litigation procedure is the same as an ordinary damages claim lawsuit
Even when the state is the defendant, there is no separate procedure, and it proceeds in the same manner as an ordinary civil lawsuit.

▶3 years from the date the victim became aware of the harm and the perpetrator
▶or, once 5 years have passed from the date the tort occurred, the right to claim state compensation is extinguished.

The attorney in charge first emphasized that there had been no clear proof of the "intent or gross negligence" that is the requirement for reimbursement under the State Compensation Act.

However, the client had merely tapped the cheek with a degree of physical force that could hardly be called assault, with the intention of helping the victim adjust to work life.

In addition, there was a gap of about two weeks between the day of the cheek-tapping and the time when the victim made the extreme attempt.

On these grounds, the attorney in charge argued that the client's physical contact was not a factor influencing the victim's extreme choice, and that accordingly no intent or gross negligence could be recognized on the part of the client.

The attorney in charge argued that the plaintiff's reimbursement claim could not be permitted because it was contrary to the principle of good faith.

The Supreme Court has held that, even where a victim's right to claim state compensation arising from a public official's unlawful act has been extinguished by prescription, if the State has performed its compensation liability by determining that an 'assertion of the completion of prescription would constitute an abuse of rights,' then, absent special circumstances, exercising a right of reimbursement against that public official again is not permitted under the principle of good faith.

In this case, the plaintiff argued in the civil lawsuit with the victim that it bore no compensation liability on the basis of the 5-year extinctive prescription under the National Finance Act and the short extinctive prescription of 3 years under the Civil Act.

However, the court determined that this constituted an abuse of rights and did not accept it, and as a result the plaintiff came to pay the damages.

In this way, a situation in which the State performed compensation without being able to assert the completion of prescription is a matter in which the exercise of a right of reimbursement is restricted under the principle of good faith.

In particular, the client was acquitted at first instance in the criminal trial of the case in question, and in the appellate trial he was the only one among the defendants to receive a suspension of sentencing, which shows that the degree of his involvement was markedly low.

This is objective ground for finding that the defendant cannot be regarded as having actively led this case, and it also does not fall under the 'special circumstances under which the exercise of a right of reimbursement is exceptionally permitted' required by Supreme Court precedent.

The attorney in charge emphasized that, taking these circumstances together, the plaintiff's reimbursement claim against the defendant constitutes an abuse of rights contrary to the principle of good faith, and that the claim cannot be permitted.