[1] In a case where one of the joint tortfeasors has filed a lawsuit against the victim and jointly indemnified, whether the attorney's expenses paid for the performance of the lawsuit are included in the scope of the right to reimbursement (affirmative), and the scope of the attorney's expenses acknowledged

[2] The case holding that the State's joint tort liability on the ground of excessive tracking by police officers is denied in case where a traffic accident occurred while a traffic accident was committed while a traffic-related vehicle violates traffic regulations by disregarding the direction of suspension of patrol vehicles and avoiding such tracking

[1] In the case where one of the joint tortfeasors filed a lawsuit against the victim and jointly relieved the victim, the "unfavorable expenses and other damages" shall be included in the right to indemnity against the other joint tortfeasors, and the "other damages" shall be deemed to include the expenses paid for the execution of the lawsuit for damages. However, the amount shall be determined within the scope of the amount calculated in accordance with Article 3 (1) of the Rules on the Calculation of Litigation Costs.

[2] The case holding that the State's liability for damages to the victim is not recognized in case where a police officer's tracking act is difficult to be deemed to be an illegal excessive tracking act because it is difficult to view that the police officer's above tracking act is an excessive tracking act, and it is hard to take other measures such as a cooperation system with other patrol vehicles, and thus, it is difficult to view that the police officer's liability for damages to the victim is not recognized in case where a police officer's liability for damages was not recognized in case where a traffic accident was caused while a traffic accident was committed while avoiding the direction of suspension of traffic patrol vehicles and avoiding such tracking, and where a vehicle that violated traffic regulations committed a traffic accident was committed in disregard of the direction of suspension, and it is recognized that the necessity and reasonableness of tracking is recognized as being related to another crime as a so-called large person.

[1] Articles 425 and 760 of the Civil Code, Article 3 (1) and / [2] Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 760 of the Civil Code, Article 1 (2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers,

[1]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Kim U.S. and two others (Attorneys Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

1. Defendant 1:

A. The amount of KRW 87,456,483 to the plaintiff Kim-tae and KRW 58,586,934 to the plaintiff Kim-ju and the amount of KRW 58,586,934 per annum from January 13, 197 to August 9, 1997; and the amount at the rate of KRW 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment;

B. The sum of 359,059,670 won and the sum of 5% per annum from September 11, 1997 to April 22, 1999 and the sum of 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date shall be paid to the Federation of the National Taxi Transport Associations of Korea.

2. Each of the remaining claims against Defendant 1 by Plaintiffs Kim U.S. and Kim-ju and the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs Kim U.S., Kim Jong-ju and the defendant 1 is eight minutes. The remaining part is borne by the above plaintiffs, and the part arising between the plaintiffs' federation and the defendant 1 shall be borne by the above defendant. The part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant's Republic of Korea shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs Kim-tae an amount of 109,173,869 won, gold 58,586,934 won, and gold 58,586,934 won to the plaintiff Kim-ju from January 13, 1997 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case; an amount of 25 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment date; an amount of 359,059,670 won to the Association of the plaintiff National Passenger Transport Business Association; an amount of 5 percent per annum from September 11, 1997 to the sentencing date of this case; and an amount of 25 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are deemed to have been led by the above defendant pursuant to Article 139 of the Civil Procedure Act between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1. The plaintiffs and the defendant 1 are as follows: Gap's evidence 1 through 5; Gap's evidence 8-1 through 16, 19 through 20, 22, 23; Gap's evidence 9-1 through 10, 12, 13, 15 through 17, 20 through 26, 30, 31, 34; Gap's evidence 1 and 2; Eul's evidence 8-1; Eul's evidence 3; Eul's evidence 11, 19, 32, 35; Eul's testimony; Eul's evidence 2; Eul's evidence 1 to 4; Eul's evidence 1; Eul's evidence 2; Eul's evidence 1 to 3; Eul's evidence 1; Eul's evidence 2; Eul's other evidence 1 to 3; and evidence 2;

A. The plaintiffs' status relationships

The plaintiff Kimun-un is a person who died of the non-party Kim Jong-soo due to the accident in this case as seen below, and the plaintiff Kim Jong-ju is a person who is the above Kim Jong-soo and Kim Jong-un, and the plaintiff's National taxi transport business association (hereinafter referred to as the " plaintiff association") is a member of the plaintiff's association established with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation in preparation for compensation for damage caused by traffic accident in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of the Korea Railroad Promotion Act, Articles 10 and 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 5 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act, and is a mutual aid association established with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation in preparation for compensation for damage caused by traffic accident. The non-party limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company of this case") who operated the above Kim Jong-soo's 60-2805 business taxi (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") whose member belongs to the non-party company.

B. Occurrence of the instant accident

(1) At around 01:20 on January 13, 1997, Defendant 1, a driver of Gwangju (vehicle No. omitted), was driving the said car and driving it to the chemical order from the south Mine Scenic distance. While he was in front of the restaurant located in Gwangju Dong-dong, he was in front of the central line, even though he was in front of the restaurant, he was in front of the central line. A approximately approximately 250 meters ago, he was placed in front of the Hyundai S branch of the Dong-dong sports, the same 112 patrol (hereinafter referred to as “the instant patrol”) located in the front of the Hyundai S branch of the Dong-dong Police Station No. 112 patrol (hereinafter referred to as “the instant patrol”). Defendant 1 was found to be in violation of the order of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1’s order to stop the operation of the Defendant’s loudspeaker.

(2) 그러나 피고 1은 위 경찰관들의 정지지시를 무시하고 남광주 사거리 쪽으로 시속 70km 정도의 속도로 도주하였고, 이에 위 경찰관들은 경광등을 켠 다음 확성기로 차를 세우라는 정지명령을 수회 발하면서 이 사건 승용차를 추적하게 되었는데, 이 사건 순찰차의 추적을 받게 되자 피고 1은 남광주 사거리에서 우회전한 직후부터 더욱 가속하여 시속 약 120km 속도로 광주 동구 동명동 소재 조선대학교 후문 입구 외곽도로 쪽으로 도주하면서 횡단보도 및 교차로의 신호를 수차례 위반하였고, 이에 따라 이를 추적하던 위 경찰관들도 그에 상응하게 속도를 높여 위 조선대학교 후문 앞까지 경광등을 켜고 확성기로 정지하라는 방송을 하면서 싸이렌은 울리지 아니한 채 50m 내지 70m 정도 간격을 두고 이 사건 승용차를 추적하였다.

(3) Accordingly, Defendant 1, who was tracking by the above police officers, went before the entrance of the above Joseon University at around 01:30 on the same day. At that time, Defendant 1, as an intersection where signal lights were installed, proceeded without disregarding the stop signal. Accordingly, at the later side of the above Joseon University, Defendant 1 got off the stop signal and got off the stop signal. At the same time, at the same time, Defendant 2, who was under way on the right side of the car driving line of this case, caused the death of the above Kim Jong-dong University at around 02:30 on the same day, caused the death of the above 6-day passenger, and caused the death of the above 7-day passenger of the above 5-day passenger, etc. at around 7:5 on the same day by getting the above 6-day driver's seat of the instant taxi, and caused the death of the above 2-day passenger of the above 5-day passenger, etc. at around 97:5 on the same day.

(c) A signal light system and road situation;

(1) There are three pedestrian crossings in front of the restaurant in Gwangju-dong, where Defendant 1 was illegal U.S., and one signal light light light light light light light light light light light light light light light light light light light, apartment buildings in the vicinity, and five pedestrian crossings in front of the entrance of the Joseon University, where the accident in this case occurred, from the south-ju distance to the front of the entrance of the said Joseon University, are located, and there are 5 pedestrian crossings with the signal light light light light, and at least three signal lights are installed from the above U.S. branch to the point where the accident in this case occurred, to the point where the accident occurred.

(2) From the above U.S. U.S. point to the South U.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1

A. The part of the claim by the plaintiff Kim U.S. and Kim Jong-ju

(1) Occurrence of damages liability

As seen earlier, the instant accident occurred due to Defendant 1’s mistake in violating the speed limit and signal. As such, Defendant 1 is liable to compensate for all damages suffered by the said Plaintiffs, who were the deceased Kim Jong-soo and his bereaved family members due to the instant accident, as a tortfeasor driving the instant car.

(2) Scope of damages

(A) The actual income of the above net Kim Jong-ran

1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(A) Gender: (1) Gender: <2) The date of birth of a male. (3) The age at the time of the accident: the maximum of 37 years of age, 4) the number of years of age, 35.07

B) Career or occupation: The deceased worked as a business taxi driver at the time of the instant accident, and the above plaintiffs have the income equivalent to the wages of the ordinary worker engaged in urban daily work.

(c) the operating period: by the 25th day of each month until the age of 60.

(d) Monetary assessment of operating capacity: 34,947 won per day for an ordinary person who falls under urban daily workers around January 1997.

(e) Cost of living: 1/3 of revenues;

(Fictitious Confession: Article 139 of the Civil Procedure Act)

(ii) accounting;

If the above net Kim Jong-ran converted the value of the total monetary value of the capacity to operate in the instant accident into the present price at the time of the instant accident according to the Hopman-type discount method that deducts the intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month, it is KRW 105,760,805.

A) The period of time (if the last month is less than the last month, hereinafter the same shall apply): 272 months from January 13, 1997, which was at the time of the accident, to September 18, 2019, when the accident reaches the age of 60.

B) Homan value: 181.5792

(c) The current price (less than the original: 34,947 won ¡¿ 25 ¡¿ 2/3 ¡¿ 105,760,805 won = 105,760,805 won

(b) Funeral expenses: 2,000,000 won (dive confession)

(C) Consolation money

1) Reasons for consideration: All the circumstances shown in the arguments of the present case, such as the deceased and the deceased Kim U.S., the age, the background and result of the present accident, family relationship, property, and education.

(ii) the amount determined;

(a) Net Kim-ran: 20,000,000 won

B) Plaintiff Kim U.S. and Kim-ju: 10,000,000 won in each of them

(d) Inheritance relations

1) Property successors and shares of inheritance of the deceased Kim-Ma: 3/5 of the plaintiff Kim Jong-un, plaintiff Kim Jong-ju 2/5 of the plaintiff Kim Jong-ju

(b) Amount of inherited bonds: 125,760,805 won (105,760,805 won ＋ 20,000 won ＋ 30,000 won ＋ 125,760,805 won

(iii)the amount of inheritance;

A) Plaintiff Kim U.S.: 75,456,483 won (gold 125,760,805 won x 3/5)

B) Plaintiff Kim-ju: 50,304,322 won (gold 125,760,805 won x 2/5)

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay damages for the damages of KRW 87,456,483 (the inheritance amount of KRW 75,456,483 + funeral expenses of KRW 2,000,00 + fixed-amount of KRW 10,000 + fixed-amount of KRW 58,586,934 (the inheritance amount of KRW 50,304,322 and the fixed-amount of KRW 10,000,000), and damages for delay for each of the above amounts, to the Plaintiff Kim Jong-ju (the inheritance amount of KRW 50,304,300,000 and KRW 10,304,322, but the above amount of KRW 58,586,934) and damages for delay.

B. Claim of the Plaintiff Union

(1) Occurrence of indemnity

(A) The Plaintiff Union paid KRW 359,059,670 in total (180,480,000 + KRW 138,353,600 + KRW 138,353,600 + KRW 400 in total on the side of the Heg Kim Jong-do and KRW 138,353,60 + KRW 40,670 to Nonparty 1) on behalf of the non-party 1, on behalf of the non-party company to which the instant taxi belongs, who was killed in the instant taxi due to the instant accident caused by Defendant 1’s negligence.

1) As to the above deceased Kim Jong-woo

A) Medical expenses: To pay 830,400 won to the hospital affiliated with the Jeonnam-gu on February 5, 1997 as the medical expenses before the death of the deceased.

B) Compensation amount: Non-party 3, who is the bereaved family member of the above deceased Kim Jong-dong, filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff association seeking payment of the total amount of KRW 192,78,000 in 97da7139 in this court. The case was referred to the mediation (97s857) and on June 3, 1997, "the defendant (the plaintiff association of this case)" on July 2, 1997, paid KRW 87,300,000 to the plaintiff Kim Jong-chul, KRW 85,30,000, KRW 85,300,000 to the plaintiff Kim Jong-chul, Kim Jong-chul, and Kim Chang-woo, respectively, and the plaintiff union paid KRW 2,500,000 in 197,000 in 20,000 in ever by July 2, 197.

C) Attorney fees: for the above lawsuit filed against the Plaintiff Union by the above Kim Jong-chul et al., the Plaintiff Union shall pay the attorney fees of KRW 2,050,000 on April 11, 1997 to the non-party senior attorney-at-law.

2) As to the above telescopes

A) Medical expenses: the amount of KRW 6,081,600 for the medical expenses before the death of the deceased at a hospital affiliated with the Joseon University on January 17, 1997 and KRW 272,00 for the medical expenses at the Seopo Medical Center affiliated with the local public corporation on June 10 of the same year.

B) Damages amount: payment of KRW 132,00,000,000 as the agreed amount for damages to the non-party, the bereaved family member of the above deceased-do, and to the non-party, the non-party, who is the non-party, the bereaved family member of the deceased-do.

3) As to Nonparty 1

A) Medical expenses: Around February 3, 1997, the amount of KRW 7,448,670 for the medical expenses of Nonparty 1, as well as KRW 145,00 for the medical expenses of the Geongdong-gu Seoul on June 10 of the same year and KRW 1,953,00 for the medical expenses of the Geongdong-gu Seoul on September 11, 1997 for the treatment expenses of the Geongdong-gu Yangdong-gu Yangdong-dong Busan on September 2, 199 for the treatment expenses of the Geongdong-gu Geongdong-gu Busan on September 11 of the same year

B) Damages amount: payment of KRW 30,000,000 to Nonparty 1 as the agreed amount of damages on August 5, 1997

(Fictitious Confession: Article 139 of the Civil Procedure Act)

(B) If so, the Plaintiff Union should have acquired the right to indemnity against Defendant 1. Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay the said subrogated amount to the Plaintiff Union.

(2) Scope of the right of indemnity

(A) Whether the cost of appointing a lawyer is included

The above Kim Jong-chul, Kang Jong-hee, Kim Chang-soo, etc. filed a lawsuit claiming damages of KRW 192,78,000 in total against the plaintiff union as 97da7139 in this court, and paid KRW 2,050,000 in the expenses of appointment of the non-party representative attorney-at-law in the non-party representative case, and the plaintiff union paid KRW 192,78,000 in the above expenses. In the case of exercising the right to indemnity against the joint tortfeasor, the right to indemnity includes the non-party representative's expenses and other damages. The "other damages" includes the expenses of attorney-at-law appointed to perform the lawsuit. However, it is reasonable to determine the amount within the amount calculated in accordance with Article 3 (1) of the Rules on the Calculation of Litigation Costs. However, since the plaintiff union's total amount of KRW 2,050,000 in the above damages amount is included in the damages amount of KRW 192,78,000 in the above Rules.30.

(B) In addition, the amount paid by the Plaintiff Union to the victims of the instant case is within the scope of compensation for damages that can be claimed against Defendant 1.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay 359,059,670 won to the Plaintiff Union on behalf of the non-party company, the sum of damages that the Plaintiff Union paid to the non-party company 1 and the non-party 1.

3. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

Since the accident of this case occurred in competition with the illegal acts of the patrolr of this case where excessive tracking of the automobiles of this case, the defendant Republic of Korea also is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as joint tortfeasor. As such, the necessity and reasonableness of the tracking, the second degree of concrete danger and predictability, the possibility of other measures, and the fourth degree of non-measures after the accident should be examined as to whether the above police officers who pursued the automobiles of this case while driving the patrolr of this case committed an illegal act.

(1) Necessity and reasonableness of tracking

First, Defendant 1’s act of illegal internship committed immediately before the instant accident is merely a minor offense under the Road Traffic Act, which is punishable by a fine of KRW 100,00,00, penal detention, and a minor fine. To crack down this, the above police officers’ act of tracking the instant accident is an excessive and subsequent to the occurrence of the instant accident. In other words, in light of the degree of Defendant 1’s criminal act, it can be said that Defendant 1’s act of tracking the police officers at that time was unlawful.

Therefore, according to Article 1 (2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, the authority of a police officer shall be exercised to the minimum extent necessary to perform his/her duties and shall not be abused. Meanwhile, according to Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the same Act, the police officer's duties include prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes, traffic control and prevention of danger and injury, and other public peace and order maintenance, etc. Accordingly, the police officer may stop and ask questions to a person who has reasonable grounds to suspect that he/she has committed or is about to commit a crime, or a person who is deemed to have knowledge of a crime already committed or to be committed, and if it is deemed that a crime is about to be committed prior to his/her act, the police officer may stop such act if urgent measures are required due to issuing a warning to the person concerned to prevent such act, and the act is likely to inflict harm on human life or body, or serious damage to property.

In addition, Article 113 (1) and Article 16 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provide that the driver shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 100,000 won, by misdemeanor imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding a fine for negligence, or by a fine for negligence. Article 211 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a flagrant offender shall be punished, and Article 211 (2) (1) and (4) of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who is frighted and tracking as an offender, or who intends to flee for drinking shall be a quasi flagrant offender.

However, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 not only carried out an intern in the U.S. section, but also attempted to flee by disregarding the order of suspension of the above police officers, and there was a situation in which it can be judged that there was a relation to any other crime except illegal internship as so-called so-called so-called Spanman, so the above police officers may be deemed to have necessary to carry out the non-examination of the persons who died in the same line, in addition to arresting or arresting Defendant 1 as a flagrant offender, and it was difficult to confirm the vehicle number of the instant vehicle or the identity of Defendant 1 as seen earlier, and even if it is possible to take a mutual cooperation investigation system by conducting radio contact with other patrols, it cannot be denied that the ultimately tracking of the vehicle that escaped at the time cannot be said to require tracking of the instant vehicle.

In addition, according to the provisions of Articles 15, 22, 25, 26, and 3 of the Road Traffic Act, and Articles 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a motor vehicle used for carrying out criminal investigations, traffic control, and other emergency police duties among the police vehicles may not be stopped without being subject to the provisions of speed restriction under the Road Traffic Act as an emergency motor vehicle, and may not stop despite being subject to the case where it is necessary to stop. If the motor vehicle is subject to such special exception, a siren shall sound a siren or turn on a light light. Thus, the motor vehicle of this case, which the patrol vehicle of this case violates traffic regulations and runs away within a distance of 50 to 70 meters, was maintained, and it was found that the light light, etc. was carried out by the tracking method of the patrol of this case (for example, the vehicle of this case was attached to the motor vehicle of this case). Thus, the act of this case was performed in a considerable way to trace it.

(2) Specific danger and predictability

Then, considering the fact that the above police officers are the roads in the city where there were apartments scattered in the vicinity from the U.S. branch to the point of the accident in this case, and there were three intersections where the signal lights were installed from the U.S. branch to the point of the accident in this case. Considering the fact that the above police officers were the roads in the Southern University and the small-scale stores located in the Nam-gu branch from the South-Yon Salk Salk-gym to the point of the accident in this case, if the above police officers were to track Defendant 1 in the speed above Defendant 1, they would be in violation of the signal signals, thereby causing damage to their own or other third parties' life and body, and it seems that the above police officers who track this situation had been predicted or could have been able to predict the above risks, the above police officers asserted to the purport that the accident in this case was unlawful by continuously tracking the track even if they were to stop.

However, as seen earlier, from the point where Defendant 1 had already parked on the side of the road to the point where it was caused by the accident, there were 9 crosswalks, and there were three signal lights crossings, and there were apartment buildings in the vicinity from the U.S. branch to the South Mine-ray, and even from the South Mine-ray to the above accident branch, there were two roads between Joseon University and small-scale stores. However, at that time, there were almost no passage of people or vehicles, and the tracking distance was about 1.81km, and the tracking distance was about about 1.81km. From the South Mine-ray to the above accident branch, freight cars were parked on the side of the road, but it was not about to the extent that it interfered with traffic, and there was no special dangerous traffic situation, from the above U.S. branch to the South Mine-ray, there was no risk of damage to the above 30 U.S. police officers from the point where the accident occurred, or there was no possibility that there was about 20 U.S. 3 laness.

(iii)the possibility of any other measure;

In light of the above road situation and the attitude of escape, etc., the plaintiffs asserted that it was illegal since the above police officers who pursued defendant 1 suspended their tracking and imposed a penalty later by ascertaining the vehicle number of the automobile driven by defendant 1, or notified Defendant 1 of the vehicle number and the direction of escape to other patrol vehicles by using the wireless telephone, etc. installed in the instant patrol vehicle, etc., although they were to have taken other appropriate measures, they continued to escape at the same speed, resulting in the accident of this case by continuing Defendant 1 by tracking Defendant 1 at the same speed, and continuing escape at the same speed, it was excessive and excessive to cause the accident of this case.

Therefore, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 840 meters away from the place where the accident occurred to the point where the accident occurred, and around 970 meters away from the south Mine to the point where the accident occurred, and the total distance is about 1.81km. Defendant 1 was at a speed of about 70 km to 80 km from the point where the accident occurred to the point where the accident occurred, and Defendant 1 was at a speed of about 120 km to the point where the accident occurred, and the instant patrol was carried out at a speed of about 120 km to the point where the accident occurred, and it was difficult to find that there was no other method of tracking the above vehicle during the time frame from the beginning of the first tracking to the time of the accident to the point where the above accident occurred, and thus, it was difficult to find that there was no other method of tracking the vehicle during the time frame from the time to the point where the above accident occurred to the time to the time of the accident, and it was difficult to find that there was no other method of tracking the vehicle during the time.

(4) The point of action after the accident.

The plaintiffs asserted that the above police officers were liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case since they violated their official duties, such as public safety and maintenance of order, as stated in Article 2 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, leaving the scene without any relief measures to conceal their excessive tracking activities immediately after the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant Republic of Korea claims that the above police officers who pursued defendant 1 was responsible for compensating for damages caused by the accident of this case. Thus, it can be recognized that the above police officers who moved into the scene of the accident of this case by moving light light and moving back to the entrance of the Joseon University, which is one-way passage through the reverse direction of the accident without any on-site relief measures, and that they left the scene of the accident. While such escape acts were illegal after the accident of this case, they did not take relief measures after the occurrence of this case, it was merely an illegal act that did not take such measures after the accident of this case, and there is no evidence to deem that the accident of this case caused the accident of this case, or contributed to the expansion of damages.

B. Sub-committee

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the above police officer's negligence or illegality of the accident of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently, and the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant Republic of Korea on this premise is without merit without further examination.

4. Conclusion

Thus, Defendant 1 shall pay the above 87,456,483 won to the plaintiff Kim Jong-un and the above 58,586,934 won from January 13, 1997 to August 9, 1997, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the defendant 1; damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date as prescribed by the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; damages for delay at the rate of 359,059,670 won for the above indemnity to the plaintiff association; and damages for delay from the date after September 11, 1997, which is the date of final subrogation, to the plaintiff Kim-ju; and damages for delay to the defendant 1 shall be paid within the limit of 5% per annum per annum of the Civil Act to the plaintiff 1; each of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed; and the remaining damages for delay shall be paid within the limit of 15% per annum per annum of the plaintiff 1.

Judges Park Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)