[손해배상][집15(3)민,433]
The nature of damages under Article 1 of the Regulations on Death Benefits for Military Personnel and the relationship with Article 2 of the State Compensation Act.
The allowance paid to bereaved family members according to the provisions of the death allowance for the soldier is of the nature of consolation money for the bereaved family, and is not of the nature of compensation for the deceased.
Article 1 of the Military Death Benefits Regulations, Article 2 of the former State Compensation Act
Plaintiff
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1117 delivered on October 5, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na117 delivered on October 5, 1967
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer. In accordance with Article 1 of the provision on the death benefits for military personnel, where a soldier died due to a cause not attributable to gross negligence during the performance of military duties, his bereaved family members would receive benefits pursuant to the annexed Table of the above provision. When the cause of the death falls under Article 2 of the former State Compensation Act at the same time, Article 2 of the former State Compensation Act differs from Article 1 of the provision on the death benefits for military personnel, and therefore the State cannot be exempted from liability for damages under the former State Compensation Act. In this case, if the same accident conflicts with the liability cost under the above two Acts, the interpretation taken by the plaintiff as stated in the above two Acts does not require the victim to guarantee the benefits of the second class prescribed under the former State Compensation Act. However, the death benefits paid pursuant to Article 1 of the provision on the death benefits for military personnel are paid even if the State does not bear liability under the former State Compensation Act. In addition, in light of the above provision, it is clear that the other party to the payment is the deceased's bereaved family members and the deceased's benefits paid directly to the deceased.
Therefore, it is justifiable that the original judgment was deducted from the Plaintiff’s calculation of 85,800 won of the bereaved family’s benefits that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant as the deceased Nonparty’s bereaved family member. (The Plaintiff’s claim for 1 million won as consolation money is based on the premise that the Plaintiff received KRW 85,800 from the Defendant. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the original judgment citing 30,000 won as consolation money violates the duty of pleading.)
The paper is without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. 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