[구상금청구사건][하집1994(1),277]
Liability to the State over which one or more public officials exercise the right to indemnity;
Where the State has granted compensation under the State Compensation Act to bereaved families by assaulting and killing a police officer, a crime prevention guard, etc. who was carried out in a police box, each public official shall bear the responsibility for division according to his/her share of expenses, and in such cases, the portion to be borne shall be determined according to the degree of contribution processed by each person's direct action and each act is determined according to the degree of contribution.
Article 2 (2) of the State Compensation Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Korea
Defendant 1 and five others
Seoul High Court Decision 9Da82401 delivered on April 14, 1993
1. The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff falling under the order to pay shall be revoked.
2. The Plaintiff, Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5, respectively, paid the amount of KRW 4,625,932, respectively, and Defendant 6, Defendant 1, Defendant 3, and Defendant 5, from January 14, 1993 to January 13, 1993, Defendant 4, Defendant 6, from February 22, 1994 to January 27, 1994, at an annual rate of KRW 5,00,000,000 per annum.
3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.
4. All the costs of lawsuit shall be five minutes in the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendants respectively.
5. The above paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.
The judgment below is modified as follows.
The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 130,839,552 won with 25% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.
1. The following facts are: (a) between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 and Defendant 4, the Defendants not only did they appear on the date of pleading of this case, but also did not submit written answers and other preparatory documents, and thus, they were led to confessions; and (b) if the Plaintiff and the Defendants 2, 3, 5, and 6 shared each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 5, 6-1 through 6, and 7-1 through 15, and all of the arguments and arguments, they can be acknowledged, and there is no counter-proofs otherwise.
A. Defendants 1 and 2 are police officers performing duties concerning the restraint of human body. Defendants 3, 4, and 5 are auxiliary police officers who transfer to police officers and assist security duties under Article 5(2) of the Act on Special Regulation of Military Service. Defendant 6 was dispatched to police boxes pursuant to Article 2(3)4 of the Local Public Officials Act and Article 4-2 of the Ordinance on Appointment, etc. of Local Public Officials on the Appointment, etc. of the Military Employment Officials, and were local public officials assisting the security patrol duties, which are national administrative affairs. Defendant 1 and 2 were paid police officers who are local public officials and assist the State’s administrative affairs. At around June 3, 1989, Defendant 2 performed the above police box on charges that he was unable to dispute with the State and Defendant 1 and 2 on the grounds of the fact that he was able to escape from disturbance due to the drinking value problem at the Saemaeul branch located in the Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
나. 그런데, 연행된 소외 2가 다음날인 같은 달 4. 01:20경 위 파출소 안에서 피고 2가 소외 1의 처 소외 3을 떠밀면서 다투는 것을 보고 소외 3에게 가세하여 위 피고의 멱살을 붙잡고 가슴을 떠밀자, 피고 1은 소외 2의 머리채를 잡고 벽에 수회 밀친 다음 앞으로 나꿔채어 넘어뜨리고, 피고 2는 소외 2가 넘어진 채로 자신의 발을 붙들자 발로 그의 가슴을 수회 차고, 피고 1이 다시 소외 2의 머리채를 잡아 바닥에 수회 찧고, 피고 3, 4, 5, 6은 넘어져 있는 소외 2에 달려들어 발과 주먹으로 그의 얼굴과 가슴 등을 수회 때리며 걷어차고, 소외 2가 사람 죽인다고 고함치며 반항하자 피고 1, 5는 소외 2가 꼼짝 못하도록 그에게 수갑을 채우고, 피고들은 재차 달려들어 발로 그의 머리, 가슴, 다리 등을 수회 걷어차고 짓밟아 그에게 뇌진탕, 두피열창상 등을 가함으로써, 그로 하여금 그날 02:20경 연세대학교 의과대학 부속 용인세브란스병원으로 후송 도중 뇌진탕에 의한 뇌부종으로 사망하게 하였다.
C. In the above case, 13 persons including the non-party 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 who are the non-party 4, 5, 5, and the non-party 6, the deceased non-party 4, 5, and the non-party 6, who are his wife, 5, and the non-party 6, were dismissed by the court of Seoul, 85, and the non-party 6, which decided that the non-party 4, 5, and the non-party 6, which were the non-party 6, were the non-party 4, 5, and the non-party 6, 5, and the non-party 9, which were the non-party 6, were the non-party 4, 500,000, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16 were the non-party 2, and the remaining 9,000.
D. After the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered on April 4, 1990 to the above Nonparty, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,219,304, and KRW 27,257,635, and KRW 127,476,939, a sum of KRW 127,476,939, which was after the judgment of the court of second instance was rendered, as damages under the above judgment, and KRW 3,362,613, which was 18 December 18, 191.
2. According to the above facts, the plaintiff is liable to compensate the above non-party for the damages caused by the above non-party's intentional tort caused by the defendant's intentional act in the course of performing the state's public security affairs, and according to the judgment sentenced as above, the above non-party was compensated for the damages. Thus, the plaintiff acquired the right to indemnity under Article 2 (2) of the State Compensation Act against the defendants.
On the other hand, when the State exercises the right to indemnity against several public officials who are joint tortfeasors under the State Compensation Act, each public official shall bear the installment obligation according to their respective share of expenses. In this case, the share of expenses shall be determined according to their respective shares of expenses, and the degree of contribution made by each of the Defendants to the damages caused by the occurrence of the damages. In light of the difference in the position of the public official in charge of the Defendants, the degree of contribution made by each of the Defendants to the damages caused by the occurrence of the damages, it is reasonable to view the share of expenses to be borne by Defendants 15/20, 20, 3/20, 3/20, 4/20, 3/20
Therefore, if the plaintiff calculates the amount of indemnity to be claimed against the defendants in accordance with the above share of indemnity, it would be 32,709,888 won for the defendant 1 (130,839,552 x 5/20), 26,167,910 won for the defendant 2 (130,839,552 x 4/20, and for the defendant 3, 4, and 5, 19,625,932 won for the defendant 3, 932 won (130,839,52 x 53/20), and 13,083,955 won for the defendant 6 (130,839,522/20) x 20).
3. Accordingly, Defendant 1 is dismissed with the above-mentioned indemnity of KRW 32,709,88; KRW 26,167,910; KRW 19,625,932; KRW 13,000; KRW 25,000; KRW 20,000; KRW 30,000; KRW 15,000; and KRW 15,000; KRW 9,000; KRW 9,00,000; KRW 15,00,000; KRW 9,00,000; and KRW 69,000; KRW 10,000; and KRW 69,00,000; KRW 10,000; and KRW 19,00,000; and KRW 5,00,000; and Defendant 1,36,000,00 per annum pursuant to the above-mentioned Special Cases Concerning the Payment of Claims.
Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)