2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant, and the remainder by the Plaintiffs, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged based on the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 50, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 9, and 1-1, 2, 3, and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 6 of the evidence Nos. 50, 51, 58, 59, 60, 62, 65, 99,

A. The non-party 1 entered the Gun on February 11, 2008 when he was enrolled in the Gun for the maintenance of the new junior college, junior college, and helicopter and one year. On February 14, 2008, the result of the military personality test conducted on February 14, 2008 showed that the non-party 1 is infinite or bad for his psychological problems or difficulties, and that there is a serious emotional difficulties or difficulties, and analyzed that there are many personal concerns or conflicts.

B. After undergoing the five-day training at the 10-day training at the Gyeongsan Training Center after entering the army, Nonparty 1 was transferred to the 1113 Military Defense Headquarters on May 30, 2008 and was assigned to the 11113 Military Service Corps on June 4, 2008, and was assigned to the 1113 Military Service Corps, and was employed as the marction management officer with support. Nonparty 5, the marction officer of the above marcing military service, who was first employed, adapts to the marcal life of Nonparty 1, who was the marcian, to the marction of the marc, and was somewhat in-depth nature, he act without permission, and if he act with his view to doing so, he would lead well military life without permission.

C. From September 22, 2008, Nonparty 1 received early education from the General Military School, and returned to the Military Service Corps on November 21, 2008. From July 1, 2008, the provisions of the Army Act were amended to enable residence outside barracks after the lapse of six months from the date of termination. Nonparty 1 was anticipated to reside outside barracks from December 1, 2008 in accordance with the amended Army Regulations, and had personal goods, such as computers, etc., but the above official disease group failed to receive instructions under the above amended Army Regulations, and led Nonparty 1 to continue residence in barracks, thereby allowing private soldiers to live outside barracks.

D. At around 08:10 on December 8, 2008, Nonparty 1 confirmed and delivered the amount of the bomb (management conversion) to be received by company for the purpose of the measurement shooting of the bomb (management conversion) of the bomb in the ammunition, Nonparty 1, who confirmed the bomb, sent the bomb first to Nonparty 8, who confirmed the bomb, and bomb in the mixed-bomb. At around 08:29, 2 balls were cut out more than the necessary bomb.

E. Nonparty 1 was expected to receive 7.62mm from the 501m powder powder, but around 09:05, Nonparty 1 was the sole military captain and Nonparty 9 to receive the 5m blank cartridges, and opened to store the firearms with the key to the firearms box in question, with the key to the string of the person on duty, in which the person on duty was placed as a kitchen, and as a key to the string of the two k-2m gun inside the 09:20, and died at the two k-2m gun and the 2mar trade site.

F. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the parents of Nonparty 1, Plaintiff 3 are the grandparents of Nonparty 1, and Plaintiff 4 are the siblings of Nonparty 1.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, since the non-party 1 had a lot of difficulties for the incidental adaptation due to the internal and friendly nature of a usual emotional emotional, the commander, etc. of the above army must have more attention and help the non-party 1 adaptive to the military unit, and should have been aware of the amended Army Regulations, especially the amended Army Regulations, so that the non-party 1 could reside outside the barracks from December 1, 2008 to the non-party 1. However, due to the negligence of having the non-party 1, the early death, in violation of the interest negligence in the non-party 1 and the Army Regulations, and caused suicide, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who had shown an unstable emotional character and caused suicide. Accordingly, the defendant has the duty to compensate for the damage suffered by the non-party 1 and the plaintiffs due to these negligence of the public officials of the above army.

B. According to the Guidelines for the Management of Ambs and Firearms of the Water Defense Headquarters, the Plaintiffs: (a) manage the ammunition key by putting it in the custody of an integrated heating unit; (b) open two keyss to the duty officer and the assistant duty officer to keep them directly while managing them; and (c) require the duty officer to confirm whether the two keyss are returned; and (d) at the time, Nonparty 1 committed suicide due to negligence, which did not open the custody of the integrated heating unit directly by the duty officer, although Nonparty 10 did not directly open the custody of the integrated heating unit, even if Nonparty 10 of the Decree did not directly open the custody of the integrated heating unit, it cannot be said that there is a proximate causal relation between Nonparty 10’s negligence and the suicide of Nonparty 1. The Plaintiffs’ above assertion is without merit.

C. In addition, according to the above guidelines, the plaintiffs also stipulate that the key to the firearms storage box shall be kept in a serious integrated heat saving unit, and the watchkeeping and the duty assistant shall be managed in a dualization with two keys respectively at night. While the above non-party 7's negligence in the management of the keys to the firearms storage unit was alleged to have committed suicide by the non-party 1, among the duty assistant officers, according to the above facts, the non-party 1's negligence in the management of the keys to the officers on duty did not commit suicide by the non-party 1's negligence on duty, but the non-party 1's negligence in the office of the workers on duty did not commit suicide, and the non-party 1's suicide was not committed by the non-party 1's negligence in the first place with two ball cartridges, and it is necessary to use the firearms to use the above key with the intention to commit suicide with the intention to commit suicide with the non-party 1's intention to receive the firearms in a normal way after the transfer or after the death. Thus, the non-party 7's negligence also can be considered as reasonable.

D. However, as non-party 1, he did not make efforts to resolve the concern or demand correction of the allocation of accommodation through consultation with his superior, etc., and the non-party 1's negligence is a serious cause of suicide. Thus, in determining the defendant's liability for damages, the above non-party 1's negligence should be considered in determining the defendant's liability for damages, but it is reasonable to view that the ratio of negligence exceeds 85% in total, and thus, the defendant's liability is limited to 15% in light of all the above circumstances.

(b) Scope of damages;

In addition to the following separate statements, it shall be as shown in the attached Table of Calculation of Damages.

(1) Actual income

(a) Job and income: The daily wage of an ordinary worker employed as an urban daily worker;

(B) Operating Period and Operating Number: From December 9, 2008 following the day following the suicide accident of this case, the 22th day of May 29, 2048, on which the day from December 9, 2008 to May 29, 2048.

(c) Cost of living: 1/3 deduction;

[Ground of recognition] Gap 1 and 2 evidence, and facts that are obvious to this court

(2) Funeral expenses

3,000,000 won ( Plaintiff 1’s expenditure)

(3) Limitation of liability

Defendant’s Liability Ratio: 15%

(4) Consolation money

(A) Reasons for taking into account: age, occupation, degree of education, family relationship, rate of negligence, and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case.

(b) the amount determined;

1) Non-party 1: 5,000,000

2) Plaintiffs 1 and 2: 1,000,000 won each;

3) Plaintiffs 3 and 4: 500,000 won, respectively.

(5) Inheritance relations

The damage claim against the Defendant by Nonparty 1 was inherited by Plaintiff 1 and 2, respectively.

(6) Amount of award by each plaintiff

(A) Plaintiff 1: 21,721,920 won

(B) Plaintiff 2: 21,271,920 won

(C) Plaintiffs 3 and 4: 500,000 won, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 21,721,920 won and the plaintiff 21,271,920 won and 500,000 won each of the above amounts to the plaintiff 3 and 4 until December 8, 2008 (the date of the judgment, the date of the judgment, and it is reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation) and 5% per annum (the Civil Act) from October 15, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the date of the judgment, it is reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation). Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is justified within the scope of each recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Young-dong (Presiding Judge)