The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

As a soldier who has a mission to defend the national territory has special power with the State, and has a duty to perform combat training and combat with the strict military ratio of his uniform uniform, the inevitable risk accompanying such duty itself is to cope with it. However, even if the soldier, in the course of performing military duty as above, has to incur damages due to an intentional or negligent act committed by another soldier in the course of performing his/her duty, it cannot be said that he/she should be held liable for damages during his/her military duty. Therefore, the State shall not be held liable for damages to a soldier, who suffered damages due to a tort committed by another soldier in the course of performing his/her duty, or his/her bereaved family member, on the ground that the soldier’s above special duty as mentioned above is justified.

On the other hand, according to the original judgment, it is clear that the court below concluded that the non-party 1, the victim on active duty, was responsible for compensating the defendant for the damages caused by the driver's accident caused by non-party 2's negligence in the workplace (military affairs) such as the driver's negligence in the 5th Army Team of the 5th Army Team in the Army, the non-party 1, the victim on active duty, was responsible for compensating the defendant for the damages caused to the accident at the accident site. However, in light of the above legal principles, it cannot be said that the decision was just. However, it is argued that the court below erred in the conclusion of the court below on the ground of the defendant's special power relation with the non-party 1. It is not possible to accept the argument, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong Mabbbble Ma