[손해배상(기)] 확정[각공2018상,204]
The case holding that in case where 20 social work personnel, including Gap, participated in the pre-training training in preparation for large-scale fire accidents in the multi-user complex, and 20 fire fighters, including Gap, participated in the training in the role of the requesting supervisor in preparation for the large-scale fire accidents in the private-public joint training facilities, and the fire fighters belonging to Eul fire fighting department from the third floor of the building were engaged in escape training in the first floor of the building, and Byung, who was other social work personnel, was discharged from the above part of the set up on the ground of the first floor, and he was discharged from the second part of the set, but he was faced with the part above the floor, such as hump, hump, and escape from the end of the set, the case holding that in case where the regular local government having jurisdiction over the location of the fire fighting department Eul, having jurisdiction over the location of the fire fighting station of the fire fighting department, has the duty to compensate for damages suffered by the fire fighter Gap due to the violation of the duty of care of the members
In a case where 20 members, including Gap, participated in the exercise of social work personnel in preparation for large-scale fire-related joint training in the private sector, and 20 members, including Gap, participated in the exercise of her role, and fire fighters belonging to Eul fire station on the third floor of the building were in operation of escape training from the first floor, and Byung, other social work personnel, was in operation on the second part of the set, but he was in operation on the top of the house, but the inside her base was in short of air in the set, and the fire fighters did not have the duty of care at the first time of escape training, and the fire fighters belonging to Eul fire fighting station did not have the duty of care at the time of escape, and the fire fighters did not have the duty of care at the time of escape training again after checking whether the fire fighters were in operation in the first time after the escape training without the duty of care of care of the chief of the fire fighting station, even if they did not have the duty of care of the first time of escape.
Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 3(2) of the Framework Act on Fire Services, Article 9(2)6(b) of the Local Autonomy Act
Plaintiff (Law Firm Ba, Attorneys Jeon Byung-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Gyeonggi-do (Law Firm New century, Attorney Han Han-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Jung-si (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Jeong Young-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
November 15, 2017
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 22,785,034 won with 5% interest per annum from May 17, 2016 to January 10, 2018, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/20 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, and 1/20 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is borne by the Plaintiff, and the
4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 233,437,471 won with 5% interest per annum from May 17, 2016 to the date of the instant judgment, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
1. Basic facts
A. Status of the parties and implementation of the instant training
1) The Plaintiff is a person who served in the Guang ○○○○○ department as a social work personnel, and the Defendant is a local government that directs and supervises the Speaker, the chief of the fire station, and the fire officers belonging thereto pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Framework Act on Fire Services.
2) From May 16, 2016 to May 20, 2016, the Council Council decided on May 18, 2016 and May 19, 2016 during the 2016th of the same month to conduct comprehensive training against the operation, inspection, and disaster of the disaster management organization on May 18, 2016. Accordingly, on May 17, 2016, at the Korea Railroad Technology Institute located in the 360-1st of the Pacific-dong 360-1, which was scheduled to implement on May 19, 2016 (hereinafter “instant training”). The Council participated in the instant training as a related agency.
3) In accordance with the instant training plan, Guang-si participated in the instant training as the role of 20 social work personnel belonging to Guang-si, including the Plaintiff, in accordance with the instant training plan.
B. Occurrence of the instant accident
1) The Plaintiff organized up to 10 escape teams with other social work personnel belonging to Guang-si, and had fire fighters belonging to the Korea Railroad Technology Institute from the main 3rd Dog-dong, Doang-dong, Jindo-dong, Eindo-dong, with the escape training set up on the ground level.
2) On May 17, 2016, at around 15:30, Nonparty 1, who is another social work personnel, had been set up in the above Empt and had been set up in the second Empt. The Plaintiff caused an accident where Nonparty 1, a non-party 1, who is another social work personnel, had been set up in the empt, and had been set up in the second Empt. However, due to the lack of air in the Empt, the Plaintiff suffered an injury, such as her mar, humd, and escape from a side, against the floor. (hereinafter “instant accident”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 8, 27 evidence (including branch numbers in case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, witness non-party 2 and non-party 1's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;
1) Comprehensively taking account of the above recognition facts and the overall purport of the arguments and evidence as seen above, the instant training is a preliminary training in preparation for large fire accidents, and the fire fighters and fire fighters were led and conducted by them, and the air was injected into the air to alleviate the shock of people, and it is recognized that the air is opened and the air is discharged in part in order to alleviate the shock of people. Since the fire fighters and fire fighters have to inject the air again through the air outlet at the close of the air outlet, and the fire fighters and fire fighters are obliged to take care of the installation and management of the air box used in the training to ensure that participants in the escape training are fully informed of the situation immediately after the escape, even if the participants in the escape training conducted the escape training by paying attention to the installation and management of the air box used in the training, and even if the participants in the escape training were discharged from the air without checking the situation of the escape in advance.
However, comprehensively taking account of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 20 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the whole oral argument, the eart used at the time of the accident in this case can be deemed to be more serious than 3 meters to 10 kilometers and 120km. The plaintiff suffered bodily injury even though he was found to have 85 to 90km at the time of the accident in this case and exceeded about 5 meters from the building at a height of 5 meters. Thus, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff was not infusing the air in the eart from the time of the first escape of non-party 1 to the time of the escape, and that the plaintiff suffered bodily injury by getting the plaintiff out of the eart even though the non-party 1 went out of the eart without sufficient air again.
2) Meanwhile, the chief of a fire station, who conducts fire-fighting duties, is under the direction and supervision of the Do governor having jurisdiction over his location (see Article 3(2) of the Framework Act on Fire-Fighting), and the affairs of a local government are affairs concerning local fire-fighting, which include fire prevention, alert, extinguishment, investigation, rescue, first aid, etc. [Article 9(2)6(b) of the Local Autonomy Act], and the defendant having jurisdiction over the location of the king Fire-Fighting Station, is in the position of leading and supervising the chief of the Guking Fire-Fighting Station. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the violation of the duty of care
B. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion
1) The defendant argued that the plaintiff's liability for damages is borne by the defendant, not by the defendant, because the training was conducted under the supervision of the Council Council. The defendant's training was conducted at the Council Council's request, and it was merely conducted at the Council Council's request, and therefore, the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for damages to the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant did not take charge of the training. The defendant's above assertion is without merit, since the accident in this case occurred in violation of the duty of care of fire fighters belonging to the Council Council's own fire fighters, and the defendant was in the position to direct and supervise the fire fighters, the chief of the fire department, and its members.
2) The defendant and the defendant joining the defendant asserted that the plaintiff cannot claim damages against local governments pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Constitution and the proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act where the plaintiff is registered as a person of distinguished service to the State, and thus he is entitled to receive compensation, and that the plaintiff's claim is groundless. The plaintiff's claim is without merit. According to the provisions of Articles 2(1)9 and 5(1) of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 9754 of Jun. 9, 2009), the public interest service personnel are those called up to serve in the field of public interest and assigned to supplementary service for the purpose of supporting expenses, surveillance, protection, or administrative work, or fostering international cooperation or art and sports, and they cannot be called as soldiers unless they are called and assigned to military service (refer to Article 2 of the Military Personnel Management Act), and thus, they cannot be viewed as civilian military employees of the defendant joining the defendant under the proviso of Article 25(2) of the former Military Service Act or the State Compensation Act.
3) The defendant argued that the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's negligence, since the plaintiff's body was inappropriate for the abortion training due to significant weight, but it was organized into a simple escape aid, but it was caused by the plaintiff's negligence after arbitrarily changing a comparison with other social work personnel who belong to the escape aid, and therefore, even if not, the accident of this case contributed considerably to the plaintiff's negligence. Thus, considering the entry of evidence No. 8, testimony of witness No. 1 and the purport of the whole arguments of Non-party 1, four of the plaintiff were replaced by the first 10 social work personnel organized into the escape aid and the plaintiff was not the escape aid in the process. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's arbitrary revision of the provision is without merit.
C. Scope of damages
The current price shall be calculated in accordance with the calculation method in which the interim interest is deducted from the simple interest, and the amount of less than KRW 10 shall be discarded in the convenience of the calculation.
[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 13, and the result of the appraiser's physical appraisal of the hospital, the fact inquiry about the hospital at the subdivision of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
(a) Future treatment costs: 8,561,605 won in total;
(a) Expenses for the removal of antiquants: 4,705,500 won, and sex treatment expenses: 2,061,009 won;
1. The treatment costs (amount required) in the table contained in the main sentence (amount required) m(s)(s) 1.M. 5,00,000 won 2017-8-17 15,705,500 won for metal removal(s) 2,190,000 won for sex treatment(s) 2,197-8-17 15,009 won
(b) Rehabilitation treatment costs due to the escape of a conical signboard: Note 1), 795,096
The list of rehabilitation treatment costs included in the main sentence: The number of annual expenses: the sum of 2017-8-17 plus 5.5922: the sum of expenses 1,795,096: the aggregate of the 2017-17-17 plus 1,795,092: the number of months of the necessary number of months and the number of months of the necessary number of months 12017-8-17 150.412 2017-9375 2017-9375 2017.10-17 17.384 2017-9384 2017-11-17. 2017-17. 20250. 2017-12-17. 26, 197. 2018- 30. 17. 20
(b) Nursing expenses: 3,025,317 won;
The sum of monthly cost of 1 m1 m2 m1-2 m2 m1-2 m2 m1-17 m2 m16-6-16 99,882 13,038,07 10.00 0.00 0.958 0.958 3,025,317 m25,317 m25,317 m25,317 m2: 3,025,317
(iii) Loss: 2) 181,198,112 per week;
(2) According to the results of the physical appraisal of the appraiser's hall and the results of the fact-finding on the hospital at the time of the division of this court, it is a permanent disability that is the 32% of the labor ability and the labor ability loss rate is 23% of the market for the escape of inferred signboards. Thus, the labor ability loss rate of the plaintiff is as listed below.
23.0% 25.00% of 17.25% 32.00% 43.73% of 43.73% of each diversative disability in the main text.
The sum of the monthly income loss rate of 1 m1 m2 m2 m2 m1-2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m1-9-18 m17 102,628 222,257,816 43.70 363.47 43.78 43.958 329.518 29 29,125,282 2019-5 205-18 2054-5 102,6222,257,816 32.0 m2 m22 m22,257,32.18 82 19: 184 7.18 198 1,208 m218 m2184,54.258 84.197
4) Consolation money
The Plaintiff’s age, the background of the instant accident, the degree of the Plaintiff’s loss, and the Defendant’s attitude after the instant accident, etc., shall be considered in consideration of all the circumstances revealed in the entire pleadings of the instant case, including the Plaintiff’s age;
5) Total amount: 22,785,034 won (sums 8,561,605 won for post-treatment + 3,025,317 won for nursing + lost income + 181,198,112 won + 30 million won for consolation)
D. Sub-committee
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 222,785,034 won and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from May 17, 2016, which is the date of the instant accident to January 10, 2018, which is the date of the instant judgment, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Tae-sung (Presiding Judge)
1) According to the results of appraiser's physical appraisal of the hospital, in the case of the escape of a conical signboard, it is necessary to keep the degree of six months for the escape, and 1,116,00 won (6,200 won x 180 days) for the pharmacologic treatment expenses, 1,032,00 won for the physical treatment expenses (8,600 won x 120 days), 420,000 won for the injection treatment expenses (70,000 x 6 times) for the amount of KRW 2,568,00 for the total amount of KRW 2,568,00. The degree of contribution to the escape of the plaintiff's conical signboard was recognized as 25%, and the average monthly treatment expenses for the escape of the plaintiff's conical signboard divided into six months into 428,568,000 won (2,568,000 won ±6 months x 208,200 won for the above 200 won x 4008 won.
Note 2)