[손해배상][집5(2)민,011]
Part II(1) of the State Compensation Act(hereinafter referred to as "public official")
The duty of so-called public official in Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to all the duty acts, so such act includes not only the case due to the economic activity of the state or public organization but also the case due to the power action.
Articles 2 and 4 of the State Compensation Act
Plaintiff
Republic of Korea (Attorney Min Dong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Daegu District Court of the first instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, 56 civilian 304 delivered on November 9, 1956
The final appeal is dismissed.
Costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The first ground for appeal contains an error of misunderstanding the law of Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the State Compensation Act. In other words, the issue of whether the State or public organizations are liable for damages within a time limit due to the intention or negligence of the public officials in the case where the original judgment causes damages to others illegally due to the acts of the public officials in the first instance court, which is, the common theory of the public officials in the public law does not include all the acts of the public officials, but limits the actions according to certain standards. The next issue is not the power action and power action of the public officials in the private law. In other words, if the State inflicts damages on others by intention or negligence in violation of the law of the public officials in the private law regarding electronic action, it is not the duty action of the public officials in the second instance of Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, and the State is not the duty action of the public officials in the second instance of Article 1 of the State Compensation Act, but the State is not the duty action of the public officials in the second instance of Article 2 of the State Compensation Act.
Since so-called so-called "service act of public official" in Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to all kinds of service act, such act includes not only cases due to the economic action of the State or public organizations, but also cases due to the power action. In this case, according to the records and the original judgment, the act of this case against the plaintiff 5 South and North by the non-party 1, who is the military police officer of the air force, is a fact that the act of this case occurred in the course of carrying the subsidiary food for the air force headquarters, and the defendant cannot be exempted from liability for compensation. Accordingly, it cannot be argued that the damage caused intentionally or negligently to another person in performing the duty due to the power action of the public official is against the spirit of the State Compensation Act enacted to protect the rights and interests of the people who are not liable for compensation by the State.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the original judgment, the second ground of appeal No. 2 is that the non-party 2, a senior police officer of the non-party 2, who is the non-party 2, the non-party 1, is responsible for guarding the driver's disease and the vehicle's rash and the vehicle's rash transport with respect to the monthly operation of the Air Force Headquarters in accordance with the order of the military police commander's commander, and two military policemen belonging to the same unit, take the lead of the three GMC trucks of the 106 to 108, and three driving soldiers and two military policemen, who are military policemen, as a military police officer, carrying a full uniform and one-time gun of the 45th MM gun and carrying a 1st knick and carrying a knick on each truck
In other words, it is reasonable to interpret that it is nothing more than a single act that is a public official's duty act regardless of whether or not the military officer's leader's order is issued or not the military officer's order is used for the purpose of military service even though the driver is a military police officer, and it is reasonable to interpret that it is nothing more than a single act that is a public official's duty act, regardless of whether or not the military police officer's full uniform gun possession is held.
However, the security service of military police officers by commercial name can not be regarded as the so-called "duty of public officials" under the State Compensation Act regardless of the method of security service for military food transportation.
Therefore, the appeal of this case is groundless and it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 401, 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Justices Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allocation of Kim Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)