법관의 명백한 오판에 대한 민사적 구제 수단- 국가배상청구권을 중심으로 -

Redesigning the accountability structure for the judges obvious misjudgments is a key task to enhance the credibility of the judicial system as a whole, not just to provide relief to victims. In terms of legal theory, standards for judging responsibility centered on objective illegality should be established, and a systematic approach through the construction of the state's self-responsibility is necessary. In addition, a reasonable distinction must be made between the individual responsibility of the judges and the responsibility of the state. In terms of institutions, comprehensive improvements at the legislative, practical, and judicial system levels are required. Legislatively, it is necessary to specify the concept of obvious misjudgment and the requirements for liability, and to establish exclusive jurisdiction and specialized tribunals in cases of state compensation. In practice, it is necessary to specify the criteria for calculating the amount of compensation and to introduce a prompt remedy procedure. Furthermore, the judicial system should improve the evaluation system for judges, strengthen their professionalism, reduce their workload, and enhance transparency in the judicial process. Institutional improvements will not only increase the effectiveness of damage remedies, but will also contribute to achieving the more fundamental goals of preventing misjudgments and enhancing trust in the justice system. In particular, it is necessary to develop a balanced system that guarantees the independence of the judiciary and ensures accountability. In addition, the results of a comparative legal study of German law on the legislative principle of no-fault damages by judges for delays in trial indicate that in our society, the issue of judges' liability for delays in trial should be urgently discussed and resolved, as much as the issue of responsibility for judges' obvious misjudgments. In this regard, in particular, the German legislative attitude should be actively adopted. As a future task, it is necessary to further specify the criteria for judging each type of obvious misjudgment. Next, further research will be needed, such as developing specific criteria for calculating the amount of compensation and examining the introduction of a judicial liability insurance system. It is hoped that the accumulation of such research will serve as an opportunity for the judicial system in Korea to develop to the next level.