All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court Decision 2023Da233895 Decided February 27, 2025 【Damages (Etc.)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issue and Holding】 [1] Requirements to recognize the State’s liability to compensate for damage arising from a judgment rendered by a judge [2] Purpose of the Rules on Pleadings in the Supreme Court, which allows the Supreme Court pleadings or pronouncements to be broadcast live or the recorded results thereof to be posted on the official website, and whether the State’s liability to compensate for damage arising from the live broadcasting or the posting of the recorded results of the Supreme Court pleadings or pronouncements conducted according to the above Rules on Pleadings in the Supreme Court may be recognized (negative in principle) [3] In a case where the Supreme Court filmed a public pleading in the “Singer A’s Art Forgery Criminal Case” and broadcast it live on its official website and through internet portal sites, and when the Supreme Court official posted the recorded video of the public pleading on the Supreme Court website, Manager B of Singer A, who had been present at the public pleading as the Co-Defendant, claimed that his or her portrait right had been violated and sought compensation from the State therefor, the case holding that viewing that the presiding judge’s order to post the recorded results after the public pleading was made for an illegal or improper purpose or noticeably violated any clear standards that judges are required to adhere to in the process of performing their official duties is difficult, and even though the official responsible for posting the recorded video was merely executing the presiding judge’s order, and thus, no separate illegality can be recognized, the lower court, which recognized the State’s liability to compensate for damage by viewing that Manager B’s portrait right was violated on the grounds that the official failed to apply a mosaic effect to Manager B’s face when posting the recorded video of the public pleading without exhausting all necessary deliberations in relation thereto, erred and adversely affected the conclusion of judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine | |
