경찰작용과 국가배상책임 = Special Articles: The Limits of Police Action; Police Action and State Tort Liability

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Police action often poses risks of state tort liabilities since it involves the exercise of governmental authority and directly contacts with people in most cases. This article is designed to address state tort liabilities regarding police action, based on the precedent discussions and legal cases. There are several purposes of discussing state tort liabilities regarding police action. From the legal policy perspectives, the purpose is to thoroughly analyze types of police action that frequently trigger state tort liabilities cases in order to minimize irregular practices. From the legal theory perspective, the purpose is to maintain more politically correct and logically consistent attitude toward the discussions over state tort liabilities regarding police action. With respect to illegal defined by the State Liability Act, some people consider that the violations are not confined to ordinance violations; but any action or behavior against human rights, social order and good public order and customs, which cannot be objectively justifiable. However, this interpretation is too vague. Illegal must be confined to violations of statutes and common laws. Nevertheless, there are conflicting ideas about whether administrative orders may be included in this regard. Administrative orders are interpreted as part of ordinances in some corners of society, while such idea was once denied by court. Unlike liabilities for negligence, public officials` liabilities for nonfeasance are based on broad protection responsibilities, and the state is deemed primarily responsible for protecting its people, including their lives and properties. However, such legal precedents have a number of problems. Firstly, while citizens` property rights are protected by law, the details and limits are also defined by law. No property rights can exist unless the law dictates. In addition, it is hardly imaginable that the state reigns over the law. Second, citizens` lives and bodies are protected by law, and the details are stipulated by individual acts. Among many reasons behind acknowledging state tort liabilities, such as compensating victims, deterring illegal behaviors and recovering law and orders, the most fundamental purpose is to keep the rule of law. In regard to state tort liabilities, the rule of law means that the rights of people are protected and that no government body is allowed to violate the rights, first and foremost. Second, any citizen who suffers damage caused by government power is able to claim damages against the state, and, by doing so, recover one`s legal state and/or receive due compensation. Third, it also warns public officials not to violate the law or not to act against the law, otherwise they may be responsible for indemnification due to state tort liabilities. Simultaneously, it also gives public officials a message that they are allowed to execute the law with conviction since the government holds the responsibilities for compensation. At the center of such discourse is interpretation and application of ordinances, which must be understood by everyone. Therefore, the State Compensation Act does not cover those rules that are not enacted and promulgated by due process, such as social norms or legal interpretations. For the same reason, administrative rules are also not included in the ordinances of the State Compensation Act.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박윤흔, "행정법강의(상)" 박영사 2004

2 김동희, "행정법Ⅰ" 박영사 2007

3 이희훈, "음주운전 단속경찰관의 작위의무위반에 대한 국가배상책임: 대판 1998.5.8" (10) : 2010

4 손진상, "법령해석오인과 공무원의 과실" 2 (2): 2002

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

6 김태진, "경찰활동의 하자와 국가배상책임-적극적 경찰활동기법과 미국의 배상제도를 중심으로" 한국공안행정학회 (22) : 259-288, 2006

7 최영규, "경찰행정법" 법영사 2005

8 설계경, "경찰작용의 하자와 국가배상제도에 관한 연구: 쟁점을 중심으로"

9 정세종, "경찰의 직무수행과 관련된 국가배상실태와 개선방안" 한국경찰학회 10 (10): 289-308, 2008

10 곽영길, "경찰관 총기사용의 요건 및 한계에 관한 연구 - 국가배상판결을 중심으로" 한국자치행정학회 22 (22): 153-172, 2008

11 곽영길, "경찰관 총기사용의 요건 및 한계에 관한 연구 - 국가배상판결을 중심으로" 한국자치행정학회 22 (22): 153-172, 2008

12 이운주, "警察活動과 國家賠償法上의 賠償責任 : 제2조의 "過失"과 제5조의 "瑕疵"의 접근가능성의 관점에서" 20 : 2000

13 경재웅, "警察權行使에 대한 國家賠償責任" 5 : 2002

14 임상곤, "警察公務員의 違法한 職務行爲로 인한 國家賠償責任의 內容에 관한 硏究" 11 : 2005

15 김성태, "無罪인 銃器使用의 國家賠償責任 - 대법원 2008. 2. 1. 선고 2006다6713 판결의 평석" 한국경찰법학회 8 (8): 28-56, 2010

16 박효관, "法令解釋의 잘못에 기한 行政處分과 國家賠償責任: 대법원 1995. 10. 13.선고 95다, 법원공보 1995하" 부산판례연구회 7 : 3775-, 1997

17 이승준, "‘밀양 여중생 성폭행 사건’의 국가배상청구를 통해 본 警察搜査에 관한 小考" 법학연구원 18 (18): 295-314, 2008

18 Hartmut Maurer, "Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht" 2009