[손해배상][집15(2)민,210]
Cases where it is not deemed that there was negligence of mistake as a counter-espionage;
In a counter-espionage area where neighboring residents prohibited and informed of traffic 8 p.m. after 8 p.m., the victim was 11 p.m. at the 11 p.m. 30 p.m. o. in a counter-espionage operation, but he/she was tried to conceal it without any response. Thus, there is no negligence on military personnel engaged in the performance of the above operation by misunderstanding the victim as a counter-espionage pursuant to the "Guidelines for Counter-Spy Operation" directed by the upper part.
Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act
Mabun et al.
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2692 delivered on April 6, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2692 delivered on April 6, 1967
The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers
According to the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1, a first class soldier belonging to the second class 17th group of the second class of the defendant Yan-gun 17th group of the second class of the second class of the second class of the second class of the second class of the second class of the second class of the second class of the second class of the second class of the second group, called out to the front class of the third class of the Gangwon-do class of the first class of the first class of the first class of the first class of the first class of the first class of the first class of the first class of the first class of the second class of the first class of the second class of the second class of the second class of the second class of the second class of the defendant, and called out to the front class of the third class of the second class of the first class of the 1965.8.5.00 through the third class of the second class of the second class of the first class of the class of the military, the above non-party 2 was exposed to the first class of the second class of the fire.
However, this accident is an accident that occurred at night 11:30 p.m. during the course of performing counter-espionage operations in an area where a counter-espionage is going out, as determined by the original judgment, and the above non-party 1, who discovered the victim who runs 10 meters away from the locked First School, did not answer it, but tried to conceal the victim at a 3-meter point. Thus, the victim was mistaken as a counter-espionage, and the victim was launched at a 3-meter point. Furthermore, according to the first term system in subparagraph 3 of subparagraph 3 adopted by the original judgment, it can be seen that the non-party 1's so-called "non-party 1 was driven by the upper part", and according to the contents in subparagraph 5 above, it can be seen that the non-party 1's negligence was not erroneous, since it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the counter-party 1's negligence.
It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu