손해배상(기)
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except the following parts, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term “Defendant Republic of Korea” is “Co-Defendant Republic of Korea of the first instance,” “Defendant B” as “Defendant,” and “Plaintiff A” as “Plaintiff,” respectively.
B. On the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the test site of this case is deemed to be “the test site of this case”.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim against the defendant
A. Where a public official of the relevant legal doctrine causes damage to another person by a tort while performing his/her duties, not only the State or a local government is liable to compensate for damage caused by a tort if the public official’s personal act is intentional or gross negligence, but also the public official is not liable to compensate for damage caused by a tort.
In this context, gross negligence means a situation in which a public official's gross negligence lacks considerable attention to the extent that it is ordinarily required, if he or she takes a little attention, he or she could have easily predicted the result of the illegal and harmful harm, and thus, it means a situation in which a public official lacks considerable attention to almost the same intention
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da13307, Dec. 26, 2003)
Judgment
1. In light of the above facts of recognition, the defendant, as a supervisor of the examination and examination of the water testing of this case, has a duty of care to give clear guidance to the examinees on the goods prohibited from carrying the test site in accordance with the basic plan for the examination of this case, and even though it is possible to carry with him the "clock that does not include any function other than the time indication, the remaining time indication by the time, the month/day/day/day/day/day/day," it is visible to the examinees of the above test site including the plaintiff.