Where a gun shots a gun at the first time and the State's liability for compensation;

The act of cutting a gun in the possession of another soldier and cutting the gun from the gun to the gun, then sticking a pen to the gun to the gun, and the act of throwing a ball loaded in the gun to the gun to the shot, and then leading the gun to the third soldier, cannot be deemed as an act related to the performance of military service or military service, even if subjectively and objectively observe the gun.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da292 delivered on April 25, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 1153Da1153 delivered on April 25, 196, Supreme Court Decision 67Da303 delivered on April 25, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 1154 delivered on April 1154, Supreme Court Decision 15Nu357 delivered on April 15, 196, Supreme Court Decision 2(48)68 delivered on April 25, 1967

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Seoul District Court of First Instance (66A1755)

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above cancellation are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 50,000 won with 50,000 won per annum from July 3, 1966 to the full payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2 and 3 50,000 won with 5% interest per annum.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and a judgment of provisional execution

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) According to the Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Judgment) without dispute over the establishment, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff Nos. 5 (the plaintiff No. 1) belonging to the plaintiff Nos. 5 (the plaintiff No. 5), who is the plaintiff Nos. 5 (the plaintiff No. 5) belonging to the headquarters of the first-class fleet in the Army, reported that the plaintiff No. 1, the plaintiff No. 1, the plaintiff No. 1, an exchange soldier belonging to the headquarters of the first-class fleet in the Army, had a gun at the unit exchange room around Mar. 13, 1964, and the non-party No. 2, the plaintiff No. 1, the plaintiff No. 1, the plaintiff No. 5, the plaintiff No. 1, the plaintiff No. 1, the plaintiff No. 1, the plaintiff No. 1, the plaintiff No. 1, the plaintiff No. 2,

(2) If so, Nonparty 1’s act is not only subjective but also objectively observed, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes an act related to the performance of military service or the performance of military service. Thus, Nonparty 1’s act constitutes a tort during the performance of military service, on the premise that it is a tort during the performance of military service, and thus, Nonparty 1’s claim against the Defendant for damages arising therefrom under the State Compensation Act is in fact dismissed without any need to make any further judgment.

(3) Since the original judgment unfairly accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim, the part against the Defendant was revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Plaintiffs’ remaining claims against the Defendant are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89, 93, and 96 of the same Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)