[손해배상청구사건][고집1967민,290]
The duty of care of a sentry serving in a diving in a locked area;
The duty of care as a sentry on the ground without any answer is sufficient and there is no obligation to verify whether there is any further question or not, even though the person who was awarded a locked duty in the beginning of the area where the diversary duty appears in the ground.
Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act
Supreme Court Decision 67Da107 Decided March 28, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 15Nu256 Decided March 25, 196, Supreme Court Decision 2Da667 Decided July 26, 200)
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Korea
Seoul Central District Court (65 Ga11205) in the first instance trial
The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The plaintiff et al. paid to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 200,000 per annum from the day following service to the day after full payment, with the amount of KRW 50% per annum from the day when service was made soar to the day when full payment was made.
The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.
The same shall apply to the order.
The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff 1's son, worked as a first-class soldier in the Army No. 28 of the Army, but the non-party 1 was not aware of the fact that the non-party 3 knew of the fact that the non-party 1 was non-party 3 was non-party 1 and the non-party 4:30 of the next day from August 30, 1964, and that the non-party 3 was non-party 1 and the non-party 3, who was non-party 1 and the non-party 3, were non-party 22:25, and there were no other evidences that the non-party 1 was non-party 3, who was non-party 1, to whom the non-party 1 was living, and there were no other reasons to believe that the non-party 3 was non-party 1, who was non-party 1, to whom the plaintiff 1 was living, and that it was non-party 3, who confirmed.
Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff et al. against the plaintiff et al. on the premise that there is a negligence against the non-party 3 is groundless. Therefore, it shall be dismissed because there is no need to decide on the remaining points. As such, the original judgment which partially accepted the plaintiff et al.'s claim is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is reasonable, so the original judgment is revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 386, 96
Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)