[손해배상등][집15(1)민,256]
Cases deemed to have no negligence in the event that he/she causes an accident with a gun discharger at the front locking hospital during the locking service;
The accident was 10:00 p.m. 20 minutes at the front diving, and the perpetrator had a tension by communicating the victim and the commander of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the victim, and the perpetrator discovered that there was about 3-meter distance from the upper part of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the victim, and without any answer, if the driver launched the M part of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch, which was officially recognized on the ground without any answer, it would be difficult to deem the perpetrator to have been able to demand a military person to launch only when he/she attempted to conceal or resist without any answer.
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act
Kim Nam-nam et al.
Countries
Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1584 delivered on December 23, 1966, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1584 delivered on December 23, 196
Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant is reversed;
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.
According to the original judgment, the court below held that the death of Non-party 1 was done by Non-party 2, without considering the situation at the time. At least three times, the court below held that the non-party 2 was liable to compensate the defendant for damages on the ground that the non-party 2's negligence was caused by the non-party 2's negligence, and that the non-party 1's negligence was caused by the non-party 2's negligence, and that the non-party 1's negligence was caused by the non-party 2's negligence, and that the non-party 2's negligence was responsible for the defendant, on the ground that the non-party 2's negligence caused the accident.
However, as the court below has duly confirmed, this accident occurred at 10:0 20 m3 p.m. at the front diving, and the victim non-party 1 and the commander of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch, and the victim of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch.
Therefore, according to Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu