태터데스크 관리자

도움말
닫기
적용하기   첫페이지 만들기

태터데스크 메시지

저장하였습니다.

Loading

미국 법원서류를 검토하던중 안병화 전 전남도경국장 유족들이 미국에서 전두환 노태우등 신군부를 상대로 한
손해배상 소송과 관련한 서류를 찾았습니다

부끄럽게도 안병화 전 전남도경국장에 대해 잘 몰라서 인터넷을 검색해 봤습니다

안병화 전 전남도경국장은 1980년 518 광주민주화운동 당시 광주에서 민주화운동이 거세지자 경찰력을 동원해
시위를 진압하라는 전두환 노태우등 신군부의 요청을 거부하고 끝까지 시민의 편에 섰던 분이었습니다

신군부는 광주민주화운동을 총칼로 진압한뒤 안병화 전 전남도경국장과 휘하 경찰간부들을 보안사 서빙고 분실로 연행,
1주일간 혹독한 고문을 가했고 안 전 국장은 고문후유증으로 약 5년뒤 사망했다고 합니다

안병화 전 국장의 유족들이 1996년 미국법원에 제기한 이 소송은 전두환, 노태우,최세창, 장세동, 허화평, 허삼수, 권정달, 유학성, 박준병, 박희도, 이학봉등 11명을 원고로 하고 있습니다

이 소송은 원래 워싱턴주에서 제기됐으나 관할권 없음으로 기각되자 항소를 제기했으나 제9순회법원에서도 안타깝게도 기각되고 말았습니다

인터넷을 통해서 알았습니다만 최근 경찰청이 안병화 전 전남도경국장등 4명의 추모비를 건립하려다 좌절되는 안타까움도 있었고 광주시민단체들의 지속적인 요청으로 공무원으로서는 유일하게 518 민주화운동 유공자로 뒤늦게나마 인정받았다고 합니다

전두환은 이 소송이 제기되자 미국에서 변호사를 선임, 변호사비로 16만여달러를 지불했음이 지난 1998년 수사에서
드러났다고 합니다 [아래 인터넷 사이트 참조]

아래는 미국 제9순회법원의 항소심 판결입니다

==============================================================================================================
Justia > Cases > US Court of Appeals > F.3d > 134 > 376 - Byung Wha an and Young-kae An, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Doo-hwan Chun, Tae-woo Roh, Sae-chang Choe, Sae Dong Chang,wha-pyung Hur, Sam-soo Hur, Kwan-dal Chung,hak-sung Yoo, Jun-byung Park, Hee-dopark and Hak-bong Lee,defendants-appellees
===========
Byung Wha an and Young-kae An, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Doo-hwan Chun, Tae-woo Roh, Sae-chang Choe, Sae Dong Chang,wha-pyung Hur, Sam-soo Hur, Kwan-dal Chung,hak-sung Yoo, Jun-byung Park, Hee-dopark and Hak-bong Lee,defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 134 F.3d 376
Jan. 28, 1998
Before WRIGHT, REAVLEY** and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
1
MEMORANDUM*
2
Young-Kae An brought suit against General Doo-Whan Chun, General Tae Woo Roh, and several other military leaders (appellees) on behalf of his deceased father, Byung Wha An, the police chief of Kwangju, Korea, alleging that the appellees tortured his father to death. The district court dismissed An's suit on the grounds that the defendants were immune from An's claims1 because they were sued in their former official capacities and were therefore immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).2 We do not reach that question because we dismiss on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over appellees.
3
The assassination of President Park Chung-Hee in 1979 and the ensuing declaration of martial law sparked massive public demonstration in the Kwangju province of South Korea. According to An's complaint, in 1980, General Chun and General Roh3 and other South Korean military leaders asked Chief An to use police force in his province to suppress the people's uprising, in what was later referred to as the Kwangju massacre. Chief An refused and the military subsequently tortured him for not cooperating. An alleges that in 1988, his father died as a result of his injuries from the torture.
4
With or without subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Alien Torts Claims Act,4 the court must also have personal jurisdiction over the defendants to hear the case.5 The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to show that the court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.6 "Because the Washington long arm statute reaches as far as the Due Process Clause, all we need analyze is whether the exercise of jurisdiction would comply with due process."7
5
If the defendants' activities in the forum state are "substantial, continuous, and systematic," a federal court can exercise general jurisdiction over them as to any cause of action, even if it arises out of an activity unrelated to defendants' contact with the state.8 If the defendants' activities are insufficient to confer general jurisdiction upon the court, the court still may have personal jurisdiction over the defendant if there are sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum.9 A court may exercise specific jurisdiction if the foreign parties purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, the cause of action arises out of the forum-related activity, and the forum's exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable.10
6
Where service is made under § 1608 of the FSIA, the relevant area in delineating contacts is the entire United States, not merely the forum state.11 Appellees have not engaged in the necessary activity in the United States to confer either general or specific personal jurisdiction. They do not own property or conduct business anywhere in the United States. Their visits to this country have been almost entirely official visits on behalf of the Korean government, which do not confer general jurisdiction,12 and were unrelated to the cause of action in this case.
7
The judgment is modified to be without prejudice and affirmed.
8
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

 

1
An brought claims under wrongful death statutes, the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, General Assembly Resolution 217(III)(A) (Dec. 10, 1948), the United Nations Rights and Duties of Man, U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2625(XXV) (Oct. 24, 1970), and the Declaration on Protection of All Persons From Being Subjected to Torture, General Assembly Resolution 3425, 30 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 34) 91, U.N. Doc. A/1034 (1975) (see Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 882 n. 11 (2d Cir.1980))
2
28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602-11 (1993)
3
General Chun served as President of South Korea from August 1980 to February 1988, and General Roh served as President from February 1988 to February 1993
4
28 U.S.C. § 1350 (1993)
5
Trajano v. Marcos (In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation), 978 F.2d 493, 500-01 (9th Cir.1992)
6
Haisten v. Grass Valley Medical Reimbursement Fund, Ltd., 784 F.2d 1392, 1396 (9th Cir.1986)
7
Omeluk v. Lansten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267, 269 (9th Cir.1995)
8
Id. at 270
9
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945); Omeluk, 52 F.3d at 270
10
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz 471 U.S. 462, 472-77 (1985)
11
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, Inc., 937 F.2d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir.1991)
12
Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro, 937 F.2d 44, 51-52 (2d Cir.1991). The only unofficial visit to the United States by any of the appellees appears to have been a one-week vacation in Hawaii by General Roh in 1995
=============================================================================================================

안병화 전남도경국장 관련기사
 http://www.munhwa.com/news/view.html?no=20070906010309270330020
 http://www.allinkorea.net/sub_read.html?uid=8478&section=section12
 http://blog.naver.com/okinawapark?Redirect=Log&logNo=40463824