Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit by Police Officer Challenging Human Rights Commission's Disciplinary Recommendation After Finalized Sanction

Supreme Court Grand Bench.
Photo by Supreme Court

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Supreme Court has ruled that once disciplinary action based on the National Human Rights Commission's (hereinafter referred to as the Human Rights Commission) disciplinary recommendation decision is finalized, there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the Human Rights Commission's disciplinary recommendation decision.

The ruling states that the interest that a disciplinary subject can use in a civil lawsuit claiming damages after obtaining a judgment to "cancel the disciplinary recommendation decision" is not a legal interest but merely a factual and economic interest, and therefore, the "interest in the lawsuit" cannot be recognized.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 18th that it upheld the lower court's dismissal of Police Officer A's appeal in the case where A filed an appeal against the Human Rights Commission seeking cancellation of the disciplinary recommendation decision.

The court explained the reason for dismissing the appeal, stating, "There is no error in the lower court's judgment that the plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking cancellation of the disposition in this case, as argued in the grounds for appeal, nor any misinterpretation of the law regarding the legal interest in seeking cancellation of the disposition."

On June 29, 2019, around 5:30 a.m., Police Officer A and other officers from the Sangju Police Station in Gyeongbuk responded to a report that "an intoxicated person was lying in an apartment parking lot."

At the scene in the ground parking lot of an apartment in Sangju City, A and others found Mr. B lying intoxicated and, while checking his condition, a scuffle broke out between B and the officers, escalating into a physical altercation between A and B as A tried to lift B up.

A and others arrested B on the spot for obstructing official duties and proceeded with an investigation, but on February 19, 2020, the prosecutor decided not to indict B due to insufficient evidence.

This decision was based on statements from related parties, an audio recording capturing B's abusive language, and video analysis of the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage at the scene conducted by the National Forensic Service.

Complainant A, who claimed to have been assaulted by B, filed an objection and a request for reconsideration against the prosecutor's non-indictment decision, but all were rejected.

Subsequently, B, who had received the non-indictment decision, filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission alleging that there was excessive response during the on-the-spot arrest by A and others. The Human Rights Commission decided to recommend disciplinary action against A and the other officers involved, citing human rights violations due to an unlawful arrest that did not meet the requirements for arrest.

The Human Rights Commission judged that ▲ B's behavior at the time of arrest, which A and others claimed was violent, was merely B extending his hand forward toward A, which did not appear to justify A striking B's neck with his hand as a necessary defensive restraint, and ▲ although B was intoxicated and used abusive language, since his identification had already been confirmed and he was known to be a resident nearby, there was no risk of flight or evidence tampering, concluding that the police's arrest of B as a suspect on the spot was an unlawful arrest lacking the necessary conditions.

In particular, the Human Rights Commission noted that when A prepared the victim's statement, he testified that "B struck his face once with a fist, and he felt pain in his left finger area from B's kick, and his glasses were broken during the assault," but omitted his own illegal prior conduct and unilaterally portrayed B as assaulting the police, which could have led to B's criminal prosecution for obstructing official duties. Therefore, the Commission recommended holding A strictly accountable for the improper execution of official duties.

Following the Human Rights Commission's disciplinary recommendation, the Sangju Police Station Chief issued a disciplinary warning without dismissal to A on June 11, 2020, citing violations of the National Public Officials Act's duties of sincerity and maintenance of dignity.

A did not undergo any objection procedures such as an appeal against this disciplinary action, so the disciplinary action was finalized. In court, A stated that he did not contest within the objection period considering the positions of the Sangju Police Station Chief and related parties.

However, despite not contesting the disciplinary action by the Chief, A filed a lawsuit on July 28, 2020, seeking cancellation of the Human Rights Commission's disciplinary recommendation decision that triggered the disciplinary action. This was to restore his honor and to use the judgment as favorable evidence in a civil lawsuit claiming damages for mental distress caused by false reports related to the incident.

The first-instance court ruled in favor of A, stating, "The defendant (Human Rights Commission) shall cancel the disciplinary recommendation decision made to the Sangju Police Station Chief regarding the plaintiff (A) on March 18, 2020," and ordered the Human Rights Commission to bear the litigation costs.

The court cited a Supreme Court precedent stating, "Whether the requirements for arresting a suspect on the spot are met should be judged based on the circumstances at the time of arrest, and the investigative body's judgment on this matter has considerable discretion. Therefore, unless the investigative body's judgment on the requirements at the time of arrest is deemed manifestly unreasonable based on experience, the on-the-spot arrest by the investigative body should not be deemed unlawful."

The court judged that since B was heavily intoxicated with impaired judgment, continuously using abusive language, standing in front of A with his hand extended, and physically responding by repeatedly reaching out to A after being pushed away, B's actions could not be simply classified as "defensive acts against the police" and might constitute assault under the crime of obstructing official duties.

The court also referred to the National Forensic Service's CCTV video analysis opinion confirming that "B raised his left hand halfway while talking to A, A pushed B, and B tried to hit A with his left hand, but A avoided it."

The court emphasized that although the prosecutor decided not to indict B for obstructing official duties, this only meant that B's actions were insufficient for criminal liability and did not imply that B's actions were justified or that A's arrest was unlawful.

For these reasons, the court concluded, "In a situation where a dispute with unclear precedence and superiority arose between A, who was performing his duties to secure B's safety, and B, who was intoxicated and used abusive language and physical force against the police, it is questionable whether A should be disciplined for human rights violations due to unlawful arrest and whether B can be regarded as a victim of human rights violations due to unlawful arrest."

The court further concluded, "Whether the act constitutes a human rights violation and whether to recommend disciplinary action is within the defendant's (Human Rights Commission's) discretion, but since A's arrest of B cannot be deemed manifestly unreasonable and unlawful, the defendant's judgment that A committed an unlawful arrest and the disciplinary recommendation based on that judgment involve errors such as misrecognition of facts or failure to sufficiently consider discretionary factors, constituting an abuse of discretion."

However, the second-instance court's judgment differed.

The second-instance court examined whether there was an interest in the lawsuit before considering the legality of the Human Rights Commission's disciplinary recommendation. This was argued by the defendant Human Rights Commission as a preliminary defense.

The Human Rights Commission argued that since the Sangju Police Station Chief issued a disciplinary warning without dismissal to A based on the disciplinary recommendation, the purpose of the recommendation had already been achieved, and thus the interest in seeking cancellation of the recommendation had disappeared, rendering the lawsuit improper.

The court accepted the Human Rights Commission's argument based on Supreme Court precedent stating, "When an administrative disposition achieves its purpose due to execution or other reasons, the subsequent legal effects are extinguished, and unless there are special circumstances, the interest in seeking cancellation of the disposition also disappears."

Since the disciplinary action has already been finalized and can no longer be contested, canceling the Human Rights Commission's disciplinary recommendation that triggered the disciplinary action has no legal significance.

Meanwhile, A argued that ▲ the reasons for the disciplinary recommendation and the disciplinary warning without dismissal by the Sangju Police Station Chief differ, and ▲ even if the reasons are the same and the legal effect of the disciplinary recommendation has expired, there is an exceptional practical need to seek cancellation considering his mental distress, the need to restore honor, and the planned claims for damages for false reports.

However, the court found that contrary to A's claim, the reasons for both the Human Rights Commission's disciplinary recommendation and the Sangju Police Station Chief's disciplinary warning without dismissal were the same?"excessive response during A's on-the-spot arrest of B." Furthermore, even if A could use a judgment declaring the disciplinary recommendation unlawful in a civil lawsuit, such interest is only factual and economic, and regardless of the cancellation of the disciplinary recommendation, A can claim damages against the state for the illegality of the disciplinary warning or against media outlets for false reports. Therefore, there is no legal interest in seeking cancellation of the disciplinary recommendation, and the lawsuit should be dismissed as improper.

The Supreme Court also agreed that the second-instance court's judgment was correct.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.