Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The Supreme Court Decision 2018Da212610, August 30, 2022(“The Decision”) has garnered attention not only for its conclusion but also for its specific contents and methodology regarding the judgment of “objective justification criteria.” This article sheds light on the possibility of developments in “Objective Justification Criteria” in State Compensation Lawsuits, centering on the analysis of precedents before and after “The Decision”. This article divides Supreme Court’s state compensation cases before and after “The Decision” into those that scrutinize the judgment of “objective justification” and those that do not and confirms whether there have been substantive changes of legal doctrine in judging state compensation liability. Additionally, This article examines Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2086563, February 6, 2024 which is a landmark judgment in “Humidifier Disinfectant” cases, centering on the similarity as “The Decision” and the possibility of development of legal doctrine in state compensation lawsuits. In conclusion, this article emphasizes the need of examination whether the speciality of legal doctrine and methodology of “The Decision” could be extended in cases such as “safety management obligations of state” cases, like “Humidifier Disinfectant” case and “Itaewon” case.
Sang-Joon Bae (Thu,) studied this question.