법무법인 프런티어
State Compensation Claim Lawyer
State Compensation Claim Lawyer | What victims need to know before filing
A state compensation claim allows a victim to recover damages caused either by a public official's wrongful conduct in the course of official duties, or by a defect in the installation or management of a public structure such as a road, river, or government building (국가배상법 제2조, 제5조). Unlike an ordinary civil suit against a private individual, the defendant is the State or a local government, and there are procedural steps — and strict deadlines — that differ from typical tort claims. Many victims first encounter this process after a car accident on a poorly maintained road, an injury from a collapsing public structure, or harm from unlawful police or administrative action.
State Compensation Claim | Two Statutory Grounds for a State Compensation Claim
The State Compensation Act (국가배상법) recognizes two distinct types of claims. Which one applies changes what you need to prove and who bears the burden of proof.
If a public official, while performing official duties, intentionally or negligently violates the law and causes damage, the State or local government must compensate the victim (국가배상법 제2조 제1항). This covers situations ranging from unlawful arrest or excessive use of force by police, to negligent administrative processing that causes financial loss. The victim must show the official's intent or negligence, unlawfulness of the act, and a causal link to the damage.
If damage results from a defect in the installation or management of a public structure — roads, bridges, streetlights, drainage systems, school facilities, and similar — the State or local government is liable regardless of whether any official was personally at fault (국가배상법 제5조 제1항). This is closer to strict liability: the victim generally only needs to prove the defect existed and that it caused the harm, not that any specific person was negligent.
Soldiers, police officers, and firefighters injured or killed in the line of duty are, in principle, barred from filing a separate state compensation claim if they already receive compensation such as a veteran's pension or disability benefits under other statutes (국가배상법 제2조 제1항 단서). This exception has been narrowed by case law over time, so whether it applies to a specific claimant needs individual review.
Sometimes the harm results from the combined negligence of a public official and a private party — for example, a road defect plus a driver's negligence. In these cases the victim may be able to pursue the State and the private party jointly, and the State may later seek reimbursement from the official personally responsible if that official acted with intent or gross negligence (국가배상법 제2조 제2항).
Note on the Official's Personal Liability
Case law holds that where a public official's negligence is merely ordinary (not intentional or grossly negligent), the victim generally cannot sue that official personally and must proceed against the State or local government instead. Determining whether an official's conduct rises to gross negligence is often a central point of dispute in these cases.
State Compensation Claim | Proving Official Wrongdoing and Negligence
Claims based on a public official's conduct require more than showing that you were harmed by government action — you must connect specific unlawful conduct to specific damage.
What Counts as 'Official Duty'
The act does not need to be a core government function; it is enough that the conduct appears, objectively, to be performed in connection with official duties (국가배상법 제2조 제1항). This can include an official's conduct during commuting in some circumstances, or acts that exceed but relate to the official's assigned authority.
Establishing Negligence and Unlawfulness
You need to show the official failed to exercise the ordinary care expected of someone in that position, and that the failure violated a legal duty owed to the victim specifically (not just a general duty to the public). This is often the most contested element, especially in cases involving police discretion, administrative delay, or prosecutorial decisions.
Gathering Evidence Against a Public Agency
Because internal records, CCTV footage, and incident reports are usually held by the agency itself, victims often need to rely on information disclosure requests, on-site fact-finding, or a court order for document production during litigation. Delaying this step risks losing access to time-sensitive evidence such as surveillance footage that is routinely deleted after a set retention period.
State Compensation Claim | Proving a Defect in a Public Structure
Facility-defect claims turn on whether the structure lacked the safety that would ordinarily be expected for its intended use, not on anyone's personal fault.
Defining 'Defect' in Practice
Courts assess whether the structure was maintained in a state of safety appropriate to its ordinary use, considering factors such as the structure's purpose, location, and how foreseeable the danger was (국가배상법 제5조 제1항). A pothole, a missing guardrail, or a malfunctioning traffic signal can all qualify if it created an unreasonable risk.
Budget Constraints Are Not a Complete Defense
A local government cannot simply argue that it lacked the budget to repair or maintain the facility as a full defense to liability, although the adequacy of management measures taken with available resources may still be considered when assessing the degree of fault or apportioning damages.
Documenting the Scene Immediately
Because road and facility conditions are often repaired shortly after an accident, photographing the exact defect, obtaining any available CCTV footage, and securing witness contact information as soon as possible can be decisive in later proving the case.
State Compensation Claim | Deadlines You Cannot Recover From Missing
State compensation claims are subject to statutory time limits that are calculated differently depending on when the victim became aware of the harm.
The Short-Term and Long-Term Limitation Periods
A claim is generally barred three years from the date the victim (or their legal representative) became aware of the damage and the identity of the person liable, and in any event five years from the date the wrongful act occurred (국가배상법 제8조, 민법 제766조). Which period has already run is frequently disputed when there is a delay in discovering the connection between an official's act and the harm.
The Council for Deliberation on Compensation Is Optional, Not Mandatory
Victims may file a claim first with the district or central Council for Deliberation on Compensation for a faster, non-litigation resolution, but going through the council is not a mandatory precondition to filing a lawsuit (국가배상법 제9조). Many victims choose to go straight to litigation, particularly where liability or the amount of damages is heavily contested.
State Compensation Claim | From Initial Consultation to Resolution
We review the facts, identify whether the claim fits an official-conduct or facility-defect theory (or both), and begin collecting records, medical documentation, and any available footage before it is lost.
We file information disclosure requests to the relevant agency or local government to obtain internal reports, maintenance logs, or incident records that are otherwise inaccessible to the victim.
Depending on the strength of the evidence and the amount at issue, we assess whether to first seek deliberation before the Council for Deliberation on Compensation or to file suit directly with the court.
We prepare the complaint identifying the State or the relevant local government as defendant, submit expert opinions or on-site inspection requests where needed, and represent the victim through the litigation process.
If the case settles or a judgment is obtained, we assist with calculating the final compensation amount and pursuing enforcement if the government entity delays payment.
State Compensation Claim | How Fees Are Typically Structured
An initial case review fee may apply depending on the complexity of gathering and evaluating the facts, particularly where extensive document review is required before we can assess viability.
The retainer is generally set based on the complexity of the case, whether it proceeds through council deliberation or full litigation, and the number of defendants involved.
A success fee tied to the amount of compensation actually recovered is common in these cases, structured to align incentives between the victim and the firm.
Court filing fees, on-site inspection costs, and expert appraisal fees (for example, medical or structural engineering opinions) are billed separately from legal fees and vary by case.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
State Compensation Claim | Self-Check for Victims
1️⃣ Is This a State Compensation Case?
- Was the harm caused by a public official acting in an official capacity?
- Was the harm caused by a defect in a road, bridge, park, school, or other public facility?
- Is the responsible party a government agency, local government, or public official rather than a private individual?
2️⃣ Evidence Preservation
- Have you photographed or recorded the defect or accident scene before it was repaired or altered?
- Have you requested CCTV footage before the standard retention period expires?
- Do you have medical records, receipts, or documentation connecting the harm to your damages?
- Have you identified witnesses and secured their contact information?
3️⃣ Deadline Awareness
- Do you know the date you first became aware of the harm and who caused it?
- Has more than three years passed since you learned of the damage and the responsible party?
- Has more than five years passed since the wrongful act or defect first caused the harm?
4️⃣ Procedural Choices
- Have you considered whether to file with the Council for Deliberation on Compensation before going to court?
- Have you submitted an information disclosure request to obtain agency records?
- Have you confirmed the correct defendant (the State, a specific ministry, or a specific local government)?
Frequently Asked Questions
Official References
개인정보처리방침
제 1 조 수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법
제 2 조 개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간
제 3 조 개인정보의 제3자 제공
제 4 조 개인정보 처리업무의 위탁
제 5 조 정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법
제 6 조 개인정보의 파기
제 7 조 의견수렴 및 불만처리
제 8 조 개인정보 처리방침의 변경
제 9 조 개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치
제 1 조 (수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법)
① 게시판 글 작성 시 필수 항목에 대한 수집목적은 ‘별도의 구체적 상담을 위하여’이며 수집항목은 ‘이름, 이메일, 연락처’입니다.
② 전항 외에 고객의 서비스 이용 과정이나 요청 사항 처리 과정에서 ‘IP주소, 접속로그, 단말기 및 환경정보, 서비스 이용기록, 쿠키’와 같은 정보들이 자동으로 수집 및 저장될 수 있으며, 이 때의 수집목적은 ‘사용자 홈페이지 이용, 사이트 이용에 대한 문의 민원 등 고객 고충 처리’입니다.
③ 사무소는 ‘홈페이지 고객 문의/고충 처리 시 전화 또는 인터넷을 통한 상담’과 같은 방법으로 개인정보를 수집합니다
제 2 조 (개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간)
관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 보존하여야 하는 의무가 있는 경우가 아닌 한, 정보주체의 개인정보는 원칙적으로 해당 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성될 때까지 보유 및 이용되며, 그 목적이 달성되면 지체 없이 파기됩니다.
제 3 조 (개인정보의 제3자 제공)
사무소는 정보주체의 개인정보를 본 처리방침에서 명시한 목적에 한해서만 처리하며 정보주체의 사전동의가 있는 경우 또는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령의 규정에 의거한 경우에만 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공합니다. 사무소는 현재 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공하지 않고 있습니다.
제 4 조 (개인정보 처리업무의 위탁)
사무소는 현재 귀하의 개인정보 보호를 위해 귀하의 개인정보를 직접 취급 관리하고 있습니다. 단, 향후 보다 전문적인 서비스를 제공하기 위하여 제3의 전문기관에 귀하의 정보를 위탁할 필요가 있다고 판단되는 경우, 귀하의 사전 동의 하에 개인정보에 대한 취급을 위탁할 수 있습니다.
제 5 조 (정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법)
① 정보주체는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 사무소에 대해 개인정보의 열람, 정정 및 삭제, 처리정지 요구 등 개인정보 보호 관련 권리를 행사할 수 있습니다.
② 제1항에 따른 권리행사는 정보주체의 법정대리인이나 위임을 받은 사람을 통해서도 할 수 있습니다. 다만, 이 경우에는 개인정보보호법 시행규칙에 따른 위임장을 사무소에 제출하여야 합니다.
③ 사무소는 정보주체의 권리행사에 대하여 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 지체 없이 조치하겠습니다.
제 6 조 (개인정보의 파기)
① 사무소는 원칙적으로 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성된 경우 등 그 개인정보가 불필요하게 되었을 때에는 지체 없이 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
② 사무소가 관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 파기하지 아니하고 보존하여야 하는 경우에는 해당 개인정보 또는 개인정보파일을 다른 개인정보와 분리해서 저장·관리 합니다.
③ 사무소는 파기사유가 발생한 개인정보를 선정하여 개인정보 보호책임자의 승인을 받아 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
④ 사무소는 파기하여야 할 개인정보가 전자적 파일 형태인 경우 복원이 불가능한 방법으로 영구 삭제하며, 이외의 기록물, 인쇄물, 서면, 그 밖의 기록매체인 경우 파쇄 또는 소각합니다.
제 7 조 (의견수렴 및 불만처리)
정보주체는 개인정보 보호 관련 문의, 불만처리, 피해구제 등에 관한 사항을 아래 개인정보 보호책임자 또는 담당부서에 문의하실 수 있습니다. 사무소는 정보주체의 문의에 대하여 신속하고 충분한 답변을 드릴 것입니다.
개인정보 보호 책임자 : 변호사
연락처 : 02.
제 8 조 (개인정보 처리방침의 변경)
사무소의 개인정보 처리방침은 관련 법령, 지침 및 사무소 내부규정에 따라 변경될 수 있으며, 개인정보 처리방침이 변경되는 경우 관련 법령이 정하는 방법에 따라 공개합니다.
제 9 조 (개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치)
사무소는 개인정보의 안전성 확보를 위해 다음과 같은 조치를 취하고 있습니다.
관리적 조치 : 내부관리계획의 수립 및 시행, 구성원에 대한 정기적인 개인정보 보호교육 등
기술적 조치 : 개인정보처리시스템 등의 접근권한 관리, 접근통제시스템 설치, 고유식별정보 등의 암호화, 보안프로그램의 설치 등
물리적 조치 : 전산실, 자료보관실 등 개인정보 보관장소에 대한 접근통제