This blog post calmly examines the legal and institutional reasons why the inherent structure of trials—including their independence, res judicata effect, and hierarchical court system—makes it difficult to broadly recognize state liability for damages.
In modern society, the state performs various administrative actions that directly impact individuals’ rights and interests. Consequently, the need to protect individuals harmed by state activities is growing increasingly urgent. The state compensation system is a legal mechanism designed to address this protective need, requiring the state to bear liability for damages to individuals harmed by its activities. This system was introduced in France in the late 19th century through court rulings, or case law, and has since been recognized by law or case law in numerous countries. Similarly, Korea enacted the State Compensation Act, stipulating that the state shall compensate for damages incurred by individuals when public officials cause harm through the execution of duties in violation of the law.
Since judicial proceedings conducted by judges also fall under state activities, it could be argued that the state should bear full liability for damages when errors occur during the trial process. However, because judicial proceedings possess unique characteristics distinct from general administrative actions, it is recognized that limitations on the state’s liability for damages in such cases are necessary. Among these special characteristics, the first factor to consider is that the constitutionally guaranteed independence of judges in the performance of their duties is essential to ensuring the fairness of trials. If the state were liable for damages solely because a judge made an error in ascertaining the facts, interpreting statutes, or applying statutes to the facts, judges would find it difficult to perform their judicial duties with conviction due to the burden of potential liability for damages.
Another special characteristic of adjudication is that res judicata is recognized for final judgments to ensure legal stability. Res judicata refers to the binding effect that arises when a judgment becomes final either because the parties do not appeal it or because it is affirmed by the highest court. This means that when the same matter is again raised in litigation, the parties cannot assert a claim that contradicts the final judgment, and the court cannot render a judgment that conflicts with it. This stems from the purpose of stabilizing the legal order by definitively resolving potentially recurring legal disputes at a certain point through the public authority of the judiciary. If it were permitted to make a final judgment, which has acquired res judicata, the subject of a state compensation claim again, this alone could undermine legal stability.
The existence of a hierarchical court system is also considered a distinctive feature of trials. The hierarchical court system refers to the legal procedure allowing parties dissatisfied with a court’s judgment to seek a retrial in a higher court. Litigants can assert errors in a judge’s performance of duties in a higher court, according to the appeal procedures prescribed by law, thereby correcting errors made in the lower court. As long as this system exists, it is difficult to recognize a separate method for correcting erroneous trial outcomes outside the hierarchical court system. If state liability for judicial decisions is recognized too broadly, the appellate system would be effectively rendered powerless, undermining legal stability.
In Germany, the law explicitly states that state liability for judicial decisions is recognized only when a judge’s breach of duty is subject to criminal punishment. In contrast, South Korea’s State Compensation Act contains no explicit provision denying or limiting state liability for judicial decisions. Therefore, the application of the State Compensation Act to trials cannot be entirely denied.
However, “our Supreme Court” narrowly interprets the scope of state liability for trials in the following manner. First, the Supreme Court recognizes the illegality of a trial even in the case of a final judgment when there are special circumstances sufficient to establish that the judge exercised his authority in a manner clearly contrary to its intended purpose. This applies, for example, when a judge acted with the intent to violate the law, such as in a case of bribery, or when the judge grossly violated the legal standards required for the performance of their duties, such as failing to even confirm the date the lawsuit was filed. Therefore, the mere fact that a judgment rendered by a judge acting with professional independence was later overturned by a higher court does not establish the illegality of the trial.
Furthermore, according to the Supreme Court, if an appeal procedure against a judgment exists, seeking state compensation without first pursuing that procedure is not recognized. In principle, if damages were not recovered due to failure to follow the appeal procedure, protection through state compensation is unavailable. However, if there are exceptional circumstances, such as the failure to appeal itself being attributable to the judge’s fault, state compensation liability may exceptionally be imposed.
Thus, while state liability for judicial decisions is fundamentally recognized, its scope is strictly limited, considering the inherent specificity of judicial proceedings, the necessity for legal stability, and the existence of the judicial structure involving multiple levels of courts. This represents a balanced approach within the legal system: ensuring the stability of judicial authority and the independence of judges while providing minimal protection to individuals harmed by serious violations of law during the trial process.
