Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Official duty negligence and adequate causation in state liability
Supreme Court, June 10, 2021, 2017Da286874 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When public officials enforcing against illegal fishing fail to rescue a person who fell from a fleeing vessel, when is their omission a breach of duty giving rise to state liability under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, and how is adequate causation to the death judged?
Holding
Duty negligence means that an official, in performing the duty, neglected the care that an average person in charge of that duty would ordinarily exercise. Where the duty imposed on the official was set wholly or partly to protect the safety and interests of individual members of society, the state is liable for the resulting harm within the range in which adequate causation is established; that causation is judged by weighing the likelihood of the result, the purpose of the norms including the statute imposing the duty, the form of the harmful conduct and the degree of harm. On these facts, weighing the time and weather, the conditions of the waters around the reef, the limits of personnel and equipment and the risk of collision with the victim, it could not readily be concluded that the supervisory officials were negligent, and their conduct could not be found to bear adequate causation to the death.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
공무원에게 부과된 직무상 의무의 내용이 단순히 공공 일반의 이익을 위한 것이거나 행정기관 내부의 질서를 규율하기 위한 것이 아니고 전적으로 또는 부수적으로 사회구성원 개인의 안전과 이익을 보호하기 위하여 설정된 것이라면, 공무원이 그와 같은 직무상 의무를 위반함으로써 피해자가 입은 손해에 대해서는 상당인과관계가 인정되는 범위에서 국가가 배상책임을 진다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the content of the official duty imposed upon a public official is not merely for the interest of the public at large or for the purpose of regulating the internal order of administrative agencies, but has been established entirely or incidentally for the purpose of protecting the safety and interests of individual members of society, the State shall bear liability for compensation for the damage suffered by the victim as a result of the public official's breach of such official duty, within the scope in which adequate causation is recognized.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the appeals shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이때 상당인과관계의 유무는 일반적인 결과 발생의 개연성은 물론 직무상 의무를 부과하는 법령을 비롯한 행동규범의 목적, 가해행위의 양태와 피해의 정도 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
At this time, whether adequate causation exists must be determined by comprehensively considering, in addition to the general probability of the occurrence of the result, the purpose of the norms of conduct, including the statute imposing the official duty, the manner of the tortious act, and the extent of the damage.
Factors
- 평균인이 통상 갖추어야 할 주의의무를 게을리한 것을 말한다
- 전적으로 또는 부수적으로 사회구성원 개인의 안전과 이익을 보호하기 위하여 설정된 것이라면
- 일반적인 결과 발생의 개연성은 물론
- 가해행위의 양태와 피해의 정도 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단하여야 한다
- 사고 시간과 기상 상태, 사고 주변 해역의 상황, 감독공무원들의 인원적 제한과 장비상의 문제, 단속정과 갑의 충돌 위험성 등을 종합하면
Unofficial English translation
• means having failed to exercise the duty of care that an ordinary person should ordinarily observe
• if it has been established entirely or incidentally for the purpose of protecting the safety and interests of individual members of society
• as well as the general probability of the occurrence of the result
• must be determined by comprehensively considering, inter alia, the manner of the tortious act and the extent of the damage
• When the time of the accident and weather conditions, the situation of the sea area surrounding the accident, the personnel constraints and equipment problems of the supervising public officials, and the risk of collision between the patrol vessel and A are comprehensively considered,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1987. 9. 22. 선고 87다카1164 판결(공1987, 1628), 대법원 1993. 2. 12. 선고 91다43466 판결(공1993상, 958), 대법원 2016. 7. 27. 선고 2014다227843 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 87DaKa1164 decided September 22, 1987 (Gong 1987, 1628), Supreme Court Decision 91Da43466 decided February 12, 1993 (Gong 1993 Sang, 958), Supreme Court Decision 2014Da227843 decided July 27, 2016
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1987. 9. 22. 선고 87다카1164 판결(공1987, 1628), 대법원 1993. 2. 12. 선고 91다43466 판결(공1993상, 958), 대법원 2016. 7. 27. 선고 2014다227843 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Had the patrol boat not been sent back to headquarters, what evidence would show that the officials could have found and rescued the victim within the survival time?
A later Supreme Court decision revising the test for adequate causation under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, or a finding that the survival time on these facts was materially longer than assumed, would require this entry to be read again. Any change to the rules governing maritime enforcement would also call for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The standard form differs: the primary reading records a comprehensive weighing standard, while the independent reading records application of the standard to the facts. Both rest on the same weighing of the case facts.
감독공무원들에게 직무집행상 과실이 있다고 단정하기 어렵고, 나아가 이들의 행위와 갑의 사망 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 볼 수도 없다고 한 사례.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Busan High Court, in its judgment of 9 November 2017 (2017Na51825), rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the joint enforcement amounted to excessive interception. It held that the patrol boat kept a safe distance and switched on its searchlight as required, that the accident happened while the fishing vessel fled from the patrol boat rather than while the boat approached, so there was no adequate causation, and that pursuing the vessel, which carried a banned triple drift net and ignored repeated orders to stop, was a necessary act of duty.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in that part of the appellate reasons. On the rescue duty, it set out the test for duty negligence and adequate causation, and applying it held that the supervisory officials could not be found negligent and that adequate causation to the death could not be seen either. It noted that the appellate reasons contained improper passages, but that the conclusion denying state liability was sound and no error affecting the judgment had been made, and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' appeals by unanimous opinion.
Distinguishing conditions
- A duty imposed solely for the general public interest or to keep order within the administrative agency, since liability attaches only where the duty wholly or partly protects the safety and interests of individual members of society.
- A case in which the official's decision was wholly unreasonable when judged at the time of the accident, rather than merely not the best in hindsight.
- A case in which the officials could have found the victim within the survival time had they stayed, since the Court relied on the finding that the probability of rescue was not high.
Record verification notes
Identify the statute imposing the duty in hand and ask whether it protects an individual's safety as well as public order. Then assemble the circumstances the Court weighed: the time and weather, the state of the waters around the reef, the shortage of personnel and equipment, the risk of collision with the victim, and the time available before drowning, typically five to eight minutes and shorter where the person did not expect to fall in, is in poor physical condition or cannot swim. Here the victim was intoxicated and fell unexpectedly into a cold, dark sea while constrained by clothing, so that the Court inferred a shorter time than that.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 공무원의 직무집행상 과실의 의미 / 공무원의 직무상 의무 위반으로 국가가 배상책임을 지는 경우의 ‘직무상 의무’의 내용 및 직무상 의무 위반과 손해의 발생 사이에 상당인과관계가 있는지 판단하는 기준 [2] 해양수산부 산하 어업관리단의 불법어로행위 특별합동단속 중 갑 등이 승선하고 있던 선박이 단속정의 추적을 피해 도주하는 과정에서 암초와 충돌하였고, 인근에서 갑이 익사한 상태로 발견되었는데, 갑의 유족들이 단속정에 승선하고 있던 감독공무원들의 구조의무 위반 등을 주장하며 국가를 상대로 손해배상을 구한 사안에서, 감독공무원들에게 직무집행상 과실이 있다고 단정하기 어렵고, 이들의 행위와 갑의 사망 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 볼 수도 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of negligence of a public official in the performance of official duties / The content of the 'official duty' in cases where the State bears liability for compensation due to a public official's breach of official duty, and the criteria for determining whether adequate causation exists between the breach of official duty and the occurrence of damage [2] A case where, during special joint enforcement operations against illegal fishing activities conducted by the Fisheries Management Agency under the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, a vessel on which A and others were aboard collided with a reef while fleeing to evade the pursuit of the patrol vessel, and A was subsequently found drowned nearby, and the survivors of A filed a claim for damages against the State, asserting, inter alia, a breach of the duty to rescue by the supervising public officials aboard the patrol vessel, and the Court held that it is difficult to definitively conclude that the supervising public officials were negligent in the performance of their official duties, and that adequate causation between their acts and A's death cannot be regarded as established
Summary of the holding
[1] 공무원의 직무집행상 과실이란 공무원이 직무를 수행하면서 해당 직무를 담당하는 평균인이 통상 갖추어야 할 주의의무를 게을리한 것을 말한다. 공무원에게 부과된 직무상 의무의 내용이 단순히 공공 일반의 이익을 위한 것이거나 행정기관 내부의 질서를 규율하기 위한 것이 아니고 전적으로 또는 부수적으로 사회구성원 개인의 안전과 이익을 보호하기 위하여 설정된 것이라면, 공무원이 그와 같은 직무상 의무를 위반함으로써 피해자가 입은 손해에 대해서는 상당인과관계가 인정되는 범위에서 국가가 배상책임을 진다. 이때 상당인과관계의 유무는 일반적인 결과 발생의 개연성은 물론 직무상 의무를 부과하는 법령을 비롯한 행동규범의 목적, 가해행위의 양태와 피해의 정도 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단하여야 한다. [2] 해양수산부 산하 어업관리단의 불법어로행위 특별합동단속 중 갑 등이 승선하고 있던 선박이 단속정의 추적을 피해 도주하는 과정에서 암초와 충돌하였고, 인근에서 갑이 익사한 상태로 발견되었는데, 갑의 유족들이 단속정에 승선하고 있던 감독공무원들의 구조의무 위반 등을 주장하며 국가를 상대로 손해배상을 구한 사안에서, 사고 시간과 기상 상태, 사고 주변 해역의 상황, 감독공무원들의 인원적 제한과 장비상의 문제, 단속정과 갑의 충돌 위험성 등을 종합하면 단속팀장이 유일한 이동·수색수단인 단속정을 보고와 지원요청 및 정비를 위하여 본부로 이동하게 한 결정이 결과론적·사후적 관점에서 최선이 아니었다고 하더라도 사고 당시를 기준으로 전혀 합리성이 없다거나 평균인이 통상 갖추어야 할 주의의무를 게을리한 잘못이 있다고 쉽게 단정할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라, 단속정을 본부에 이동시키지 않고 해상수색을 하도록 했더라도 갑의 생존가능 시간 내에 그를 발견하여 구조할 가능성이 높다고 볼 수 없으므로, 감독공무원들에게 직무집행상 과실이 있다고 단정하기 어렵고, 나아가 이들의 행위와 갑의 사망 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 볼 수도 없다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the appeals shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Provisions referred to
[1] 국가배상법 제2조 제1항 [2] 국가배상법 제2조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger