2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/5 are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and 4/5 are assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Case history

(1) At around 22:10 on June 3, 2003, Nonparty 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the leader”) captured Plaintiff 2, who returned to the private teaching institute classes in front of the Maspo apartment located in front of the Maspodong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, and took away Plaintiff 2 on the national highway located in the Maspo-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, and she she she she she once raped Plaintiff 2. At around 23:09, he parked the said vehicle on the Haspo-dong-gun's Haspo-gun's Haspo-dong-gun's Haspo-dong-dong-gun's Haspo-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gun, and did not make a warning to the deceased 3,000,0000 won to the death of the deceased, and did not make it known to the deceased her.

(2) On the other hand, at around 23:18, Plaintiff 1 reported to the police station, and the Deceased made 4.4 million won by collecting all possible cash, making this money mixed with newspaper and mix it, and he stored it on June 4, 2003, and made a phone call to the perpetrator who received money on June 4, 2003. The leader designated the place of promise as the Gwangju Bank located in the Dong-dong-dong where the promise was made.

(3) Nonparty 2 and 3, a police officer belonging to the Ganpo Police Station, moved to the destination and destination of his own vehicle (Seoul 58A1229). To respond to the police, the Defendant changed the place of promise from the Gwangju Bank to the police, and again directed the police officer to turn on the emergency, etc. of the vehicle into the Eup/Myeon of the Yananan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun. The leader finally caused the cash to be placed in the place where the high-restricted traffic facilities are located in the front of the Yanan-gun Village, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, the police officer assigned to the Ganpo Police Station. The Deceased, who was the police officer assigned the vehicle to the Yanpo-gun Police Station, went to the Yanpo-gun. The Yan-gun was going to go off from the place where the Yanpo-gun moved the vehicle to the hing of the vehicle to the hing.

(4) The deceased reported that she had her own money in the above place, and returned her vehicle driven by her bow to the above place in order to rescue the plaintiff 2, who is his/her father, and prevented him/her from shocking the vehicle of balone in the above place. He/she approach the vehicle of balone in the vehicle of balone in the vehicle of balone, she saw him/herself into the balone, and salone in the balone vehicle of balone, and salone in the vehicle of balone, with his/her balone and salone in his/her balone, and moved about about 40-50 meters to the above place, and moved about about 290 meters from the site of her balone, and then she was using the 20-year salone and salone in his/her body at the time of his/her death.

(5) On the other hand, the police station prior to the receipt of the abduction incident at the time was located at the police station in the police station, the chief of the police station at the police station at the police station at the police station at the police station at the police station, and directed the investigation of the case at the police station at the police station at the police station, and, at the scene, the police officers, such as Nonparty 4 et al., and Nonparty 5 et al., who took place at approximately 300 meters away from the scene, were sponsed at the police station at the scene of the deceased's cell phone location tracking the location of the deceased's cell phone and identified the location of the police station at the time. At the same time, the police officers, such as Nonindicted 5 et al., were sponsed at approximately 290 meters away from the scene.

(b) Family relationship;

Plaintiff 1 is the deceased’s wife, and the rest of the Plaintiffs are their children.

[Based on Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1 through 4; Gap evidence 9-1 through 26; Gap evidence 10-1 through 8; witness non-party 4's partial testimony (except for the part not trusted in the rear); the result of this court's video tape verification; the whole purport of oral argument

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the deceased and the deceased were liable to compensate for damage to the deceased and the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, since the police officers, etc. who were at the scene of the crime of this case, such as Nonparty 2 and 3, and the police officers and the chief of the police station and the chief of the investigation division, etc., who were at the time when the deceased was involved in the accident of this case, did not take any measures to respond promptly to the crime of abduction, even though the deceased was punished for the crime of abduction, and even though he was aware that the crime of abduction was armed, the deceased did not wear any protective gear such as a bruth, etc., at the time of the death of the deceased, using at least 11 knives and knives to the knives of the knives of the deceased and the result that the kives had to respond after the escape.

(2) Specific review

(A) While Nonparty 2 and 3, a police officer, who was aboard the deceased’s vehicle at the time, moved the deceased to a safe place after putting the deceased at the instant crime site, the Plaintiffs asserted that the deceased’s personal care was caused by the accident by leaving the upper direction at a place where approximately 200 meters was moved from the scene of the instant crime, and the deceased’s personal care was taken part in the victim’s rescue operation and the arrest operation.

The defendant asserts that the defendant is not responsible since the police assigned to the scene could act according to his own decision without waiting the upper order. ② After moving about about 200 meters from the scene of the crime of this case to the sponsor, the police forced the deceased not to intervene in the arrest operation of the sponsor and return the sponsor to the sponsor in accordance with the direction of the upper court, and the deceased left the vehicle to take into account the sponsor of the sponsor, and the deceased was able to take the direction of the police and return the vehicle to the sponsor solely.

Even if the police assigned to the scene is able to independently conduct operations without direct instruction, the judgment itself cannot be exempted from liability if it deviates from or was inappropriate to do so. The crime place of this case is identical to the above facts recognized as follows. Thus, Nonparty 2 and 3, who took place at the time, did not contact with each other and carried out the arrest of the leader and the operation of the plaintiff 2, at the time, can not be said to have been appropriate judgment that 2 were able to remove the deceased from the vehicle to the scene of the crime of this case, and it cannot be said that it was possible for the police to find that the distance of 200 meters was sufficiently safe as the defendant's assertion that he could not be found to have provided the plaintiff 4,000, because he could not be seen as having provided the plaintiff 2's 2,000,000, because he could not be seen as having provided the defendant's 4,000,0000,000 won.

(B) The Plaintiffs asserted that two police officers in two forms at the place of the instant crime and two police officers who disembarked from the deceased’s vehicle, but it is obvious that the deceased did not arrive at any site until 11 or knife reaches the knife’s knife, leaving the deceased’s death alone, is an operational failure of the police officers belonging to the Defendant.

In this regard, the Defendant asserted that: (a) at the time, the Defendant did not specify the place of crime; (b) the police officers belonging to the Ganpo Police Station could not immediately move to the place of crime in the rural area beyond his jurisdiction due to lack of booming view; and (c) the police officers accompanying the deceased’s vehicle after the specified place of crime attempted to contact with each other in a specific place; (b) the police officers at the Ganpo Police Station attempted to make contact with each other; (c) it was difficult to promptly communicate because they could not have a cell phone contact with each other; (d) the police officers at the Ganpo Police Station did not have any time to respond to the situation since they got out of the place of crime, and (e) the police officers at the time did not have any time to respond to the situation after they got out of the place of crime.

The Defendant’s assertion that it was difficult for the police station to take an adequate response due to the lack of the time to view the deceased’s 2’s knife at the time of committing the crime by using Nonparty 4’s cellphone at the time of the crime, and that the Defendant’s knife and 2’s knife and knife of the deceased’s knife and knife at the time of the crime, the Defendant’s knife’s knife and knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s k.

(C) In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that there was negligence of sending the deceased for the purpose of contact with the crime of abduction without any protective gear (e.g., bombing, etc.) even though it was sufficiently possible for the deceased at the time to do so.

In this regard, the defendant argued that, at the time of judgment, the deceased could not at all be anticipated that the deceased was balone and balone, and that the police who was put into the site had the gun bear the gun, but the deceased did not require the deceased to wear special protective gear and carried two armed police officers.

As seen earlier, in the instant case where a leader finally demanded a 3,400,000 won of cash, he was unable to prepare more than 4.4 million won, and he was supplied to a leader by creating a newspaper box well, and where he knew the shortage of money which he requested after confirming the money, he could cause any physical harm to Plaintiff 2. As seen in this case, the deceased, his father, who was the deceased, could have access to the crime. In addition, under the circumstance where he was known that the abduction was armed with a shot gun, there is a possibility that the deceased and the shot can lead to a shot at any time. Accordingly, there is a possibility that the shot will be a shot, and the two police officers, such as Nonparty 2, etc., on the part of the deceased, were sent to the scene without any protective gear for the safety of the deceased, and the police officers, such as Nonparty 2, etc., who was on board the vehicle for the safety of the deceased, might have neglected the Defendant’s independent instructions and did not have any reason for the crime.

(3) Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is responsible for compensating the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the above negligence of the police officers of the Yeongdeungpo Police Station who are public officials belonging to the defendant.

B. Limitation on liability

However, according to the above evidence, although the deceased instructed the police officer to return to a prisoner of war at the time, it is recognized that the accident of this case was caused by the accident of this case. Such improper behavior of the deceased is also one of the causes of the accident of this case. However, this does not reach the extent that the defendant is exempted from liability for damages, and it is reasonable to consider the calculation of the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant. The plaintiffs' negligence ratio is sufficient to 20% in light of the above facts.

3. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual wages;

The loss of lost wages lost by the deceased due to the accident of this case is the amount calculated at the present price at the time of the accident of this case according to the Hofmanial Calculation Act, which deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month based on the following recognition facts and evaluation basis:

(1) Facts and evaluation of recognition

(A) Date of birth: A male on September 25, 1961 (which remains between 41 and 8 months at the time of the accident)

(B) Occupation and career: The Deceased was appointed as a public official in food sanitation service on November 25, 1991 and was on duty as a local food sanitation clerk (Grade VIII) at the time of the instant accident.

(c) Age: 57 years of age (the age limit shall be 60 years of age);

(D) Import level: The deceased may obtain the same income as the monthly salary in the column for monthly income in the attached Table for the calculation table of salary grade up to December 31, 2018 (the retirement age of local public officials of Grade VI or lower shall be from the age of 57, and where the date on which he/she reaches the retirement age falls between July and December, 31. Article 66 of the Local Public Officials Act) after the date of the instant accident, until December 22, 2018 (see Article 66 of the Local Public Officials Act). However, overtime work allowances do not admit that there is no evidence to prove the probability that he/she would be receiving it fixed after the date of the instant accident, and it does not recognize that it is possible to deduct 8.5% of the monthly salary, such as the contribution in the attached Form for the calculation table of salary grade) and thereafter obtain the maximum working age of the urban wage of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance on September 24, 2021.

(e) Cost of living: 1/3 of income;

(2) Calculation (the calculation shall be calculated from July 1, 2003 to August 31, 2021, as sought by the plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply).

It is 252,706,609 won, such as the statement in the aggregate of the income in the attached table for calculation of damages.

(b) Daily retirement allowance;

The loss of a lost retirement allowance that the deceased lost due to the accident of this case is the amount calculated by deducting the retirement allowance received from the money calculated at the present price at the time of the accident of this case pursuant to the Hofmanial Calculation Act, which deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month based on the following facts:

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) Date of appointment: November 25, 1991; the scheduled date of retirement from office: December 31, 2018

(B) Method of calculating retirement pay

(1) The lump-sum retirement pension: [Amount of monthly remuneration of the month in which the day before the retirement day belongs (hereinafter referred to as "amount of monthly remuneration") 】 number of years in office (for each month less than a year, it shall be calculated as 1/12 year, and the number of years in office shall not exceed 33 years) 】 ＋ [Amount of monthly remuneration 】 number of years in office 】 number of years in office 】 (number of years in office ? 5) 】 1/100];

(2) Retirement allowances: Monthly remuneration amount ¡¿ Number of years of service ¡¿ Payment rate by number of years of service (60/100 where the period of service is at least 20 years).

(c) Amount of monthly remuneration: 2,095,600 won (excluding additional dues, and see Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act) in total of the basic salary, the end allowances, the allowances for good attendance, the allowances for good attendance, and the additional dues for good attendance allowances (i.e., the main salary of KRW 1,496,700 + 249,450 won in the end allowances + 249,450 won in the overtime allowances + 100,000 won in the additional dues for good attendance allowances)

(d) Number of years of service: In the case of the Deceased, the period of military service shall be calculated by adding to 11 months.

(E) Former retirement allowance: 46,202,730 won (=Lump-sum retirement allowance of KRW 37,698,440 + retirement allowance of KRW 8,504,290)

(2) mountain.

(A) A retirement allowance when a person works and retires before the scheduled retirement date;

(1) The lump-sum retirement pension: (2,095,600 won ¡¿ 30 years ¡¿ 150/100) + (2,095,60 won ¡¿ 30 years ¡¿ 25 years ¡¿ 25 years) = 94,302,00 won + 15,717,000 won + 110,019,000 won =

(2) Retirement allowances: gold 2,095,600 won ¡¿ 30 years ¡¿ 60/100 = gold 37,720,800 won.

③ Total amount: 147,739,800 won (=10,019,00 won + 37,720,800 won)

(B) The current price at the time of the instant accident: gold 83,233,690 won [=147,739,800 won/ [1 +0.05 x 186/12]

(C) Amount after deducting retirement allowances already received: 37,030,960 won (==83,233,690 won in the largest of 46,202,730 won)

(c) Actual income: gold 289,737,569 won (=252,706,609 won per day wage + 37,030,960 won per day retirement allowance);

(d) Net income after offsetting negligence: 231,790,055 won (=289,737,569 won)

(e) Funeral expenses.

(1) Expenditure: Plaintiff 1

(b) Amount: gold 2,000,000 won;

(3) The part on Defendant’s responsibility: gold KRW 1,600,000 (=2,000,000) x 0.8)

(f) consolation money;

(1) The deceased and the plaintiffs' age, family relations, property and educational degree, circumstances of the accident and the result, degree of negligence, and other circumstances shown in the arguments shall be considered.

(2) The amount recognized

Deceased: 30,000,000 won

Plaintiff 1: 10,000,000 won

Plaintiff 2, 3: each of the gold 5,000,000

(g) Inheritance relationship;

(1) Successors and inheritance shares: Plaintiffs 13/7, 2, and 3 respectively;

(2) Plaintiff 112,195,737 won = (231,790,05 won for lost income of the deceased + 30,000 won for consolation money of the Deceased + 30,000,000 won for consolation money of the Deceased) ¡¿ 2, 3, and 74,797,158 won for each of the plaintiffs 2, 3, and 3 [= (231,790,05 won for lost income of the deceased + 30,000 won for consolation money of the deceased + 30,00,000 won for consolation money of the deceased)]; 2/7];

(h) Amount of final damages;

(1) Plaintiff 1: 123,795,737 won (i.e., inheritance amount of KRW 112,195,737 + Funeral expenses of KRW 1,600,000 + solatium of KRW 10,000,000)

(2) Plaintiff 2 and 3: Each of the amount of KRW 79,797,158 (i.e., inheritance amount of KRW 74,797,158 + 5,000,000)

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, and 7 (including each number), fact inquiry of the wooden market in this Court, the whole purport of the pleading

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 123,795,737 and the amount of KRW 79,797,158 for each of the plaintiff 2, and each of them after the date of occurrence of the accident of this case, and the defendant's claim against the plaintiff 1 for damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 9, 2003 to June 10, 2004, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant is justified 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 old-ro (Presiding Judge) Ma-Un Kim Jong-hee