[손해배상(기)청구사건][하집1987(4),267]
Whether the State is liable for the death of a riot police officer due to violence in the internal armed forces (negative)
The fact that riot police officers were assaulted and died from an educational sense from a superior of the internal affairs during the internal affairs of the training and education team, the riot police officers died within the facilities used for the purpose of maintaining public order in relation to training or other execution of duties as a security public official. Therefore, there is no state compensation liability.
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Articles 1, 2, 2-3, and 4 of the Establishment of Pilotage Police Units Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)
Plaintiff 1 and two others
Korea
All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 31,18,415 won, 500,000 won per annum from April 16, 1985 to the date on which the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the defendant. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 25 percent per annum from the following day to the date on which the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the defendant.
The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant, and a declaration of provisional execution.
In light of Gap evidence Nos. 3 (Death Report), Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Written Indictment), Gap evidence Nos. 8-3 (Protocol of Trial), Gap evidence Nos. 9-3 (Report on Criminal Acknowledgement), 4, 5, 8, 9 (Investigation Report), 6 (Investigation Report), and 7 (Examination Report), and the testimony of the stuff back to the witness, the non-party 1, who is the senior police officer, who was in service as security personnel at the Haak-dong office and the office of the defendant, was under service as security personnel on April 15, 1985, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was the senior police officer, was under service at the Haak-dong Office of the defendant, cannot be acknowledged as having the non-party 2, the non-party 1, who was under service at the Haak-dong Police Station's emergency police station guard at around 20:00, and the non-party 2, the non-party 1, who was under service 2, the 3, died.
The plaintiffs asserted that the non-party 1, who was a public official belonging to the defendant, died of the non-party 2 due to the negligence in the performance of his duties, that they are responsible for compensating for the property and mental damage suffered by their father and birth. The defendant 1's performer was paid the bereaved family's pension, etc. under the Act on Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State at the time of the accident, and the plaintiffs who were their bereaved family members cannot claim compensation against the State pursuant to the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act. Thus, in full view of the whole purport of the arguments cited above, the non-party 1 was discharged from the 37th of the Army on November 1983 and was discharged from the 5th of the 1984 Police Station for the treatment of the non-party 1, who was the non-party 2's father and the non-party 2's non-party 1, who was the non-party 2's non-party 1, who was on duty.
However, comprehensively taking account of the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 2-3, 4 and Article 41 of the Military Service Act, the combat police officers are composed of the riot police officers and police officers in order to carry out counter-espionage operations and assist the public security affairs. Members of the combat police units are deemed to have completed active duty education upon the completion of their transfer period, and the Police Officers Act shall apply mutatis mutandis except for the reasons prescribed by the Act. Thus, members of the combat police units are deemed to have the status of police officers if they were enlisted in active duty service and are assigned to the combat police units. According to Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the combat police Units Establishment Act, the members of the combat police units are deemed to have been inevitable for their service and are not obliged to live within the combat police units, and there is no other dispute between the two police officers of the State Compensation Act and the police officers of the State Compensation Act for the first time after the completion of their education and training (the above 20th anniversary of the death of the police officers of the State Compensation Act).
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is without merit to examine other points such as damages, and it is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.
Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)