The case holding that there was no negligence on the part of a public official who was mistaken and killed as a counter-espionage;

A military police officer carrying out a counter-espionage operation obtains information that three persons, who are sypists get in and escape from a cargo train, and finds that three persons, who are similar to a sypher and a sypher, are on board the train in the atmosphere, and if the military police officer intends to escape despite having received and recommended a syphering in the air, it shall be deemed that the sypher was a sypher, even if one of them was killed as a sypher, and there is justifiable reason to believe that the sypher was a negligence of the military police officer.

Articles 750 and 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Countries

Daegu District Court of First Instance (66Ga3750 decided)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,500,000 with an annual interest rate of 5% from the next day of service of the complaint to the next day of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

At around 23:50 minutes of August 8, 1966, the fact that the deceased non-party 1, who is the plaintiff, died on the following day due to the general notice that the counter-espionage operation unit was launched in the Gyeong-dong Dong-dong Dong-dong Dong-dong Dong-dong, Gangwon-do-do Dong-gu, Gangwon-do-do-Eup

The plaintiff's attorney asserted that the number of non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of the military police station, who was a public official of the defendant country, did not confirm whether the non-party 1 were the non-party 1, and that the non-party 2 knew the non-party 1 as a counter-espionage, but there were justifiable grounds to believe that the non-party 3 knew the non-party 1 as a counter-espionage, and that the non-party 3 witness of the first instance court (the non-party 4, 5, and the non-party 6 witness of the non-party 3 (the non-party 2 witness of the non-party 4 and the non-party 3 witness of the non-party 2 were the non-party 3 witness of the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 witness of the non-party 3 were arrested at the non-party 2 police station's counter-party 7, the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 witness of the non-party 2 were the non-party 3 witness of the military police station.

Thus, if the military police officer, who conducts counter-espionage operations under the same matters as the above recognition, attempted to flee despite the fear of fear and solicitation of resistance, there is a justifiable reason to believe that it was a counter-espionage, even if the military police officer attempted to flee as a counter-espionage, and attempted to kill Nonparty 1 as a counter-espionage, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that it was a negligence of the military police officer.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for damages on the premise that there was negligence or intention in the course of performing duties of the above military police officers should be rejected as the plaintiff's claim for damages on the premise that there is no judgment on the remaining points, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and there is no appeal for this case.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)