[손해배상(기)][공1989.2.15.(842),225]
Whether or not the State is liable for damage to the victim due to robbery of the soldiers;
In a case where a soldier who was hospitalized in a military hospital was killed in the commission of robbery and robbery, even if there was negligence of neglecting the duty of the soldier on duty, which was not prevented the escape of the above soldiers, it cannot be deemed that there was a considerable relation to the robbery of the above soldiers, and thus, it should be acknowledged that the special circumstance that the above soldiers knew or could have known that they would have been engaged in robbery or robbery by making a robbery or robbery by making a robbery, etc., for the purpose of recognizing liability to the State on the grounds of negligence, such as the robbery of the above soldiers on duty.
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act
Kim Pu and eight plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-type defendant-appellee
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 87Na2073 delivered on July 24, 1987
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party") who were hospitalized in the 21st soldier's office of the Armed Forces Hospital was not in charge of treatment at the same time, conspired to escape together with the non-party 1 and to robbery, and that the non-party 4 were negligent in performing the duty of care for the patient at the time of the above hospital, and that the non-party 4 was negligent in performing the duty of care for the patient at the time of the above hospital, and that the non-party 4 was negligent in performing the duty of care for the patient at the time of the above hospital, and that the non-party 4 was negligent in performing the duty of care for the patient at the time of the above hospital, and that the non-party 4 was negligent in performing the duty of care for the patient at the time of the above hospital, while taking necessary measures for the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 driver's duty of care for the above accident.
However, even if the facts are acknowledged by the court below, it is difficult to view that the negligence of the non-party 5 and the non-party 6 is related to the acts of robbery of the non-party even if the causes for the escape of the above non-party can be seen as having a substantial relation to the acts of robbery of the non-party. Since the above excessive or balone theory, etc. can be obtained at any time and can be obtained, it shall not be the same as the non-party who stolen it, and used it for the above crime. Therefore, the court below should acknowledge that the non-party 5 and the non-party 6 knew or could have known that the non-party 5 knew, or could have known, that the non-party 6 would commit robbery or robbery by taking advantage of the negligence of the non-party 5 and the non-party 6. However, the court below did not examine and decide this part.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the State Compensation Act, and there is a reason to discuss.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)