The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 43,579,310 won, the amount of 25,51,655 won per annum from December 3, 2001 to December 22, 2005, and the amount of 5% per annum from the next day to December 22, 2005 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit are four-minutes, and three-minutes are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. The monetary payment portion under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

A. Grounds for liability

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Gap evidence 2, 5, 7 through 11, 12, 23, 25, 26, 34, 55, 56, 76, 77, 82, 85, 87, 106, 106, 141, 147, 148, 148, 10-7, 12-7, 12-6, 11-2, 12-1, 19-12, 19-1, 3, 15-1, 3, 10-1, 16-1, 3, 16-1, 3, 14-1, 10-1, 5, 10-1, 6-1, 3

(A) On November 27, 2001, Plaintiff 1, the wife of the deceased Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “the deceased”), was found in the counter box of the Jinju Police Station on November 23:34, 2001, and reported to Nonparty 5’s assistant, an indoor employee, to “a threat to son in knife at knife” to Nonparty 5, who was a police officer, requested the dispatch of the police officer. Nonparty 1 and two police officers, including Nonparty 1 slope and Nonparty 3 police officer, were called “(name omitted) fireworks” located in the Jinju-dong (hereinafter omitted) where he was located.

(B) On the other hand, at around November 27, 201, immediately before Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 were called the above fireworks, Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 7, who were under drinking in the opposite dong located in Jinju-si, the deceased, at around November 27, 2001, followed Nonparty 7’s son by the following talks, such as the deceased’s intention to divorce with Plaintiff 1, and the deceased’s drinking spawn, and the deceased’s spawn, who was a police officer of the counterpart police box called upon receiving the report, and between Nonparty 8 slope, a police officer of the above police box dispatched to Nonparty 7, and between Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 7’s sending to the hospital of Nonparty 7, the deceased escaped to the above colon’s house near the above main box.

After that, the plaintiff 1 was found in the counter box and requested the dispatch of the police officer while making a report as above. The non-party 1 and the non-party 3, who is the police officer belonging to the neighboring patrol unit, who arrived at the counter box according to the order of support of the situation room, called the "non-party 1 and the non-party 3, at the place where the plaintiff 5, who was working at the place where the plaintiff 1 was a police officer assigned to the sub-sacrife of a third party's sacrife at the drinking house, and threatened the deceased with the knife by safing a third party's shoulder at the present house, and called the knife at the patrol room, and called the plaintiff 1

(C) On November 27, 2001, Nonparty 4, who had a close-friendly relationship with the deceased’s family, thought that Plaintiff 1 would make a mobile phone called “○○C, one time at the house, and one time at the house,” and that he would immediately put the phone to the above abund, but the Plaintiff 1, who called the above abund, did not go to the house, and attempted to return to the above abundled by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3, who, on his own, tried to return to the above abundled, at the end of the fireworks on the part of the deceased’s house (on November 27, 2001, around 23:59). < Amended by Act No. 6538, Nov. 27, 2001>

(D) At this time, Nonparty 3 saw the gun to shot and shot the gun, and Nonparty 1 went to shot the gun, and shot the gun thereafter. Nonparty 3 went to Nonparty 4, while entering the fireworks house, and shot off Nonparty 4 on the inside and outside of the gun, while Nonparty 3 went to Nonparty 4, the deceased called “I am to swe? I am? I am to swe? I am? I am to swe? I am? I am to swe am?? I am to swe am?? I am to swe am? I am to swe am? Nonparty 3 and 1 come to swe am. Nonparty 4 simply cut off Nonparty 4, who was the owner of a sweed to sweet the gun to sweet the gun at the Jin-si sweak, and left the sweet and left it back to 3.

(E) Then, the Deceased was attacked by Nonparty 3’s attitude on the part of Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 3 was born in order to get out of the Deceased, and Nonparty 1 was found to have committed an assault, such as Nonparty 3’s her hand, and the deceased was found to have been frighted by Nonparty 1’s her hand, and the deceased was forced to stop this, but the Deceased was sent a warning to the Deceased, but the Deceased continued to have his body fighting in the same manner without releasing Nonparty 3.

(f) Before being called out at the time, Nonparty 5 notified Nonparty 5 of the situation that “the deceased escaped from drinking house with a knife and threatening knife with a knife,” the deceased believed that he had a knife at his house. Nonparty 1 continued to assault Nonparty 3 without a knife Nonparty 3, the deceased’s knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn

(G) The Deceased was under pressure with Nonparty 3, following his guns, and was used out of the fireworks house and appealing for abundance. The Deceased was confirmed later, and the Deceased did not carry all dangerous weapons, such as a knife, with Nonparty 3 at the time of shooting with Nonparty 3, etc.

(h) The Deceased was immediately sent to the Gyeong University Hospital and hospitalized treatment, but died on December 3, 2001 due to liver heat, etc. and died on May 5, 2001.

(i) On August 19, 2002, Nonparty 1 was prosecuted for the crime of occupational death by Jinwon District Court 2002Kadan816 with respect to the instant accident, and on January 8, 2003, the above court sentenced Nonparty 1 to a fine of KRW 10 million with respect to Nonparty 1, and on which Nonparty 1 appealed to Changwon District Court 2003No167, Jun. 17, 2003, the judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered on June 2003.

On March 25, 2004, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the above appeal and sentenced the case to the appellate court for the reason that the use of Nonparty 1’s rifle was illegal act beyond the permitted scope under Article 10-4(1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, or that it cannot be readily concluded that Nonparty 1 was an act to commit the crime of death by occupational negligence, etc., and remanded the case to the appellate court. On September 8, 2004, the Changwon District Court, which was remanded by the Supreme Court, reversed the judgment of the judgment of the court below (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Decision 2002Da816) and sentenced Nonparty 1 not guilty. The above judgment became final and conclusive on September 16, 2004.

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

(2) Determination on the cause of the claim

(A) A police officer may use a weapon to arrest or escape an offender, to protect his or another person's life and body, to suppress resistance against the performance of official duties. However, even in this case, when there are reasonable grounds deemed necessary to achieve the purpose, a police officer's use of a weapon shall be determined within necessary limits after reasonably assessing the situation (Article 10-4 of the former Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers (amended by Act No. 7247 of Dec. 23, 2004). Whether a police officer's use of a weapon satisfies such requirements shall be determined according to whether the use of a weapon is deemed reasonable by social norms in consideration of the type and nature of a crime, degree of legal interest, urgency of harm, degree of danger, situation of danger and injury, number of criminals and police officers, type of weapon, mode of use of a weapon, surrounding circumstances, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da57566, May 13, 2004).

In addition, criminal liability due to illegal acts is held liable for acts violating the legal order of society, and is subject to a public sanction (criminal punishment) against an offender, while civil liability is held liable for the infringement of another person's legal interests, and is based on the compensating for damages incurred to the victim as it imposes the individual responsibility on the offender for the infringement of another person's legal interests. Therefore, since the damages system is the guiding principle, since the fair and reasonable burden of damages is the guiding principle, even if it is an infringement that does not constitute criminal acts, it should be examined from the perspective of criminal liability

(B) According to the above legal principles and the facts of recognition, Nonparty 1, a police officer at the time of the instant accident, observed carefully whether the deceased carries a knife or other lethal weapons, and should have determined whether there exists any imminent danger to use the knife on the deceased. If Nonparty 1 determined the knife as above, it would be difficult for the deceased to use the knifely and carefully, even if he did not use the knife with any deadly weapon, he was in cooperation with Nonparty 3, Plaintiff 1, or Nonparty 4 on his job, and had the deceased launch ball cartridges for the deceased, even if it was in a situation where it was impossible to launch the knife with the deceased, and even if it was found that there was a situation where it was no inevitable time to launch the knife with the body part of the deceased, thereby causing the death of the deceased.

Therefore, even if the aforementioned non-party 1's use of the firearms has a reason to consider the motive, purpose, circumstance, and situation and the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive in the criminal case, it is reasonable to view the use of the firearms as a tort under the civil law in consideration of the following factors: (a) the content of the negligence as seen above and the specific form of the use of the firearms could harm people; and (b) the actual result of the victim's death was actually caused; and (c) the fair share of the damage caused by the accident

(C) Therefore, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the non-party 1's illegal acts, who is a public official belonging thereto.

B. Limitation on liability

The Deceased, a police officer, who was called upon the Plaintiff 1’s report, exercised violence by leaving the police officer’s uniform, and continued to assault Nonparty 3 without going on the body of Nonparty 3, despite Nonparty 1’s warning that Nonparty 1 caused fear of blank 1. Since the Deceased’s mistake was a direct cause for causing the instant accident, it shall be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendant, but the ratio of negligence shall be deemed to exceed 60% in light of the above facts.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual profits;

The loss of lost profit equivalent to the monetary total appraised value of the capacity of the deceased lost due to the instant accident is 239,506,120 won calculated at the present price at the time of the death of the instant accident, based on the facts of recognition and the assessment as follows: (a) the interim interest is deducted at the rate of 5 percent per month, as follows:

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(a) Gender: Male;

Date of birth: April 17, 1958

Age at the time of accident: 43 years of age and 7 months;

Name of term of lease: 31.21 years;

(b)financial assessment of operating capacity;

From January 18, 1991 to December 3, 2001, the deceased operated the above fireworks. As such, from the above death date to April 17, 2018, the deceased has been able to obtain monthly income of 2,511,315 won (=monthly wage of 1,898,750 won + 612,565 won + annual special benefit of 7,350,791 ±12) during 196 months from the date of the above death to April 17, 2018.

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

(2) Calculation

2,511,315 won ¡¿ 100% ¡¿ 143.0562 ¡¿ 2/3 = 239,506,120 won

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, empirical rule, evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5-1, 6-1, 2, and 3-3, and fact-finding results against the Jinju Tax Office in the trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Medical expenses: On December 4, 2001, Plaintiff 1 paid KRW 5,279,570 to the Gyeong University Hospital as the medical expenses of the Deceased on December 4, 2001 (Evidence 7).

C. Funeral expenses: The plaintiff 1 paid three million won as funeral expenses of the deceased (the fact that there is no dispute).

D. Limitation on liability

(a) Fruits ratio: 60%;

(2) Calculation

lost earnings: 239,506,120 won ¡¿ 40% = 95,802,448 won

Medical expenses and funeral expenses: 8,279,570 won (=medical expenses of KRW 5,279,570 + funeral expenses of KRW 3 million) ¡¿ 40% = 3,311,828 won

(e) consolation money;

(1) Reasons for consideration: The deceased's age, family relation, academic background and career, the background and result of the accident of this case, the degree of negligence of both parties, the non-party 1 deposited 20 million won as consolation money for the plaintiffs (record 836 pages) and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

(2) Determination amounts (total 21 million won)

Deceased: 10 million won;

Plaintiff 1: 5 million won

The remaining plaintiffs: 2 million won each;

(f) Inheritance relationship;

(1) Inheritor’s heir: Plaintiffs (Plaintiff 1: 3/9’s equity, and the remainder: 2/9’s equity, respectively);

(2) Calculation

Plaintiff 1: 35,267,482 won [=105,802,448 won = lost profit of 95,802,448 won + 10 million won + 3/9];

The remaining plaintiffs: 23,51,655 won (=105,802,448 won = lost profit of 95,802,448 won + 10 million won + 2/9)】

(g) Small rivers;

Plaintiff 1: 43,579,310 won (i.e., shares in inheritance 35,267,482 + medical expenses and funeral expenses + KRW 3,311,828 + unique consolation money of KRW 5 million)

The remaining plaintiffs: 25,511,655 won each (=the share of 23,511,655 won + the unique consolation money of 2 million won)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 43,579,310 won, plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 25,511,65 won, respectively, as well as damages for delay according to each of the 20% annual rates as stipulated in the Civil Act, from December 3, 2001 where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation and its scope from December 3, 201 when the deceased died, until December 22, 2005, and from the next day until the full payment date, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as there is no justifiable reason.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and thus, the part against the plaintiffs corresponding to the above cited part is revoked, and the payment thereof is ordered to the defendant, and the remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges’ aid aid (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-tae