In a case where, on April 16, 2014, Gap et al. was on board "the Sewol ferry (the Sewol ferry) sunken at the sea near Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, and sought damages against Eul et al., who is the bereaved family of the victims of death and sought damages against the State and the passenger transportation service provider Eul et al., the case holding that the State and Eul jointly and severally held that the State and Eul

On April 16, 2014, when the passenger ship was sunken at the sea near Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, the case was that Gap et al., who was the bereaved family of the victims of death, sought damages against Eul et al., the State and passenger transportation service provider Eul et al.

In light of all the circumstances, it is recognized that the field commander of the Sewol ferry accident was negligent in failing to take appropriate rescue direction and to induce passengers to get out of the ship, which constitutes an unlawful act in violation of his duty by the maritime police officer who is in charge of rescue operations, and there is a proximate causal relation between the violation of duty of care and the result of the death of the sacrifers, the State is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the sacrifers and their surviving family members due to the negligent illegal act committed by the public officials belonging to the maritime police station in accordance with Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, and on the other hand, the victims who were on board the Sewol ferry caused the death of the sacrifies who were on board the Sewol ferry due to the occupational negligence and the acts committed by the sacrifies and their employees on board the Sewol ferry without any rescue measures against the sacrifies and passengers on board the ship, and such acts constitute not only intentional or negligent act but also the act committed by the sacr.

Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act; Article 5 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers; Articles 210, 389(3) of the Commercial Act; Articles 750, 751, 756, and 760 of the Civil Act

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Won, Attorneys Credit Guarantee, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea and one other (the Government Legal Service et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

May 24, 2018

1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from April 16, 2014 to July 19, 2018, and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. One-fourth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from April 16, 2014 to the date of final delivery of the application for the purpose of the instant claim and the cause of the instant claim, and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) The occurrence of any accident in the Sewol ferry and the status of the parties;

1) Around October 2012, Defendant Cheong-ju, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Cheong-do Passenger Transportation Service”), a passenger passenger transport service provider operating the Incheon- Jeju passenger transportation services (hereinafter “Defendant Cheong-do Passenger Transportation Service”), imported the “Nasan-ho,” which was a passenger vessel operating on the coast of Japan, and completed repair and extension works, after which the name was determined as the “Ssi-ho,” and completed the repair and extension works. On March 14, 2013, the Incheon Regional Maritime Port Authority approved the amendment of the plan for maritime passenger transportation services (hereinafter “the foregoing passenger vessel”).

2) On April 15, 2014, at around 21:00, the Sewol ferry sailed from the coast wharf in Incheon, 447 passengers, such as members of the Ansan-gun, and students, etc., who were on board the Province. On April 16, 2014, at around 08:48, the hull tried to change the direction of 145∑ from the 1.8 nautical miles in Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and the hull was rapidly fluened on the left side, and was entirely sunken after several hours. From among the passengers and crew members on board the Sewol ferry and 476 persons on board the Sewol ferry (including missing persons) died, many victims were killed (hereinafter referred to as “accident in the Sewol ferry”).

3) The Plaintiffs are bereaved families of those who died of the Sewol ferry accident on April 16, 2014 (116 students, 200 students, and 2 general public) as indicated in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “victims of this case”).

(b) elapsed from the date on which the Sewol ferry was previously set aside.

(i) the impairment of restitution due to the extension or reconstruction of the Sewol ferry;

In order to increase the passenger room and cargo loading space in the Sewol ferry from October 2012 to February 2013, Defendant Cheongnam-gun removed the stern part of the Sewol ferry from the Seoul Southern-gun, Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was located in the Jeonnam-gun, and made two floors of the space that occurred by extending A A, which was changed into the passenger room, the lower floor into the passenger room, the upper floor into the exhibition room, etc., and removed 40t of the player slight (entry door of the vehicle).

After that, as a result of the completion restoration calculation, the gross tonnage of the Sewol ferry is calculated to have increased 239ts, the light weight (net weight) increase in 187ts, the weight of the goods 187ts, the number of passengers on board increases in 116, and the weight-centered 51cm in order to maintain stability navigation while maintaining stability by lowering the weight centering, the cargo available for loading is reduced to 1,448ts and the number of Ambassadors 1,324ts can only be loaded at 1,077ts, and as a result, it was approved by the Korean class.

In addition, the weight of 30t (lap 40t, close 10t) was added to the on-site of the player at the time of removal of the car lamps, or the 30t weight was not reduced on the port side, which led to the deepening of 40t weight, thereby significantly affecting the restitution.

(ii) departure from port in excess of the volume of cargo to be loaded;

According to the restitutional data approved by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries pursuant to Article 28 of the former Ship Safety Act (amended by Act No. 1299, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter the same), the weight of goods is 2) 3,794 tons per week for the weight of goods and 1,077 tons for the maximum weight of goods that can be loaded while maintaining restitution. Thus, in order to load a maximum of 1,077t cargo with the maximum of 6.264 meters of the length of the Sewol ferry 1,694.8t, fuel oil oil 560.9t, and clean water 290.9t should be loaded and depart from the port.

Nevertheless, the officers and employees of the Defendant Clean Shipping demanded that a large number of unconditioned cargo be loaded without consideration as to restitution and over-fluence to the persons related to Syun Korea Co., Ltd., which is the Sewol ferry operator 1 and the loading and unloading company. On April 15, 2014, Nonparty 1 did not make sure that the number of cargo can be loaded more than that set forth in the Sewol Ferry No. 93.6t, fuel oil 410.3t, 31.9t, etc. than that set forth in the Sewol Ferry No. 1,375.8t, after a large reduction of 1,375.2t, fuel oil 761.2t, fuel oil 150.6t, and 259t, and Nonparty 2 did not cause the captain of the Sewol Ferry to inspect the cargo.

As a result, on April 15, 2014, Sck (2nd floor) loaded a total of 2,142t amount of cargo, such as 45 containers and general cargo on deck, and loaded a cargo exceeding 1,077t amounting to more than 1,065t amounting to 1,065t amount which can be loaded on restored material. After loading a container on the cargo section where the container locking device is not installed, the cargo group was set up in the general professional manner without fixing the container on the floor, and the container locking equipment and size on the player deck installed on the deck were loaded on two parts, and the cargo was unloaded from Incheon to Jeju-do in violation of the provision of Section 3).

3) The preceding map of the Sewol ferry;

At around 08:48 on April 16, 2014, the hull was rapidly employed on the left side while Non-Party 3, who had been on duty in the north bank of 1.8 Emb., the Chonam-gun, Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, for the first time at the sea on the north bank of 1.8 Emb., the navigation officer was under the supervision of Non-Party 4.

In the process, the overfluenced cargo was caused rapidly to the port side, and the restoration power has been lost due to the influence of the Sewol ferry on the port side, and about 30·40·30·400 on the port side.

C. Countermeasures to be taken by the captain and crew of the Sewol ferry and the captain of the ship.

On April 16, 2014, the Sewol ferry turned over to the right side of the ship, and the captain, non-party 2, and crew members (non-party 1, non-party 5, non-party 6, non-party 7, and non-party 8) who were in the ship room (non-party 1, non-party 5, non-party 6, non-party 7, and non-party 8) were gathered in the steering room in order to grasp the situation of the accident, and the non-party 1 requested the Jeju Marine Transportation Control Center to rescue at around 08:55 on the same day.

On the same day, at around 08:58, Nonparty 2 ordered passengers to broadcast “to wait in a ship by suffering life jackets” to Nonparty 5, and immediately thereafter, Nonparty 2 started the waiting broadcast of Nonparty 9 on board.

On the same day, at around 09:07, Nonparty 2 and the Sewol ferry crew were to communicate with the Jindo Coastal Traffic Control Center (hereinafter “S”) and the Jindo Coastal Traffic Control Center (hereinafter “S”) around the Sewol ferry, and came to know of the fact that the ○○○○○○○○○○, which had been on navigation, had the passengers informed of the fact that the passengers had been on the part of the said vessel. Nevertheless, without taking any measures to rescue passengers, such as evacuation order, evacuation order, evacuation order of passengers to get out of the said vessel, etc., they did not respond to the communications from Jindo VTS after around 09:37.

On the other hand, the head of the Sewol ferry head and the crew members of the engine (the non-party 12, the non-party 13, the non-party 14, the non-party 15, the non-party 16, and the non-party 17) from around 09:06 to around 09:38, the non-party 11 and the crew members of the engine of the Sewol ferry also moved to the third corridor and wait for the rescue of the life jackets by gathering the life jackets on the third floor and waiting for the rescue of the passengers. At around 09:38, the former Coast Guard of the Korea Coast Guard was approaching the third floor, leaving the passengers and other crew members as they were left in the Sewol ferry, and went to the former Coast Guard of the Korea Coast Guard around 09:39.

At around 09:39, the non-party 2 and the crew, who were in the pilothouse, immediately left the ship, and immediately boarded the ship at around 09:46, on the 123rd of the Korea Coast Guard.

(d) Response and rescue failure of the maritime police;

(1) The dispatch and arrival of rescue force

The Sinpo Coast Police Station, from April 14, 2014 to April 5, 2014, had 123 local coast guard units, which were 100t small coastal guard units, consolidate the inland sea area (area where the Sewol ferry accident occurred) and Jindo Coast 3 areas.

On April 14, 2014, at around 09:00 on April 14, 2014, Nonparty 18, at the 123 123-day scheduled navigation, was carrying 12 passengers in the 123-day scheduled navigation, and was performing their duties, such as maritime expenses, within the Jindo Coast 3 around April 16, 2014, at around 08:57 on April 16, 2014.

On April 16, 2014, at around 08:54, 19, high school students Nonparty 19, who are passengers of the Sewol ferry, reported the accident to 119, and from 119, the phone call was received to the situation room of the Mapo Sea Police Station. Nonparty 20 of the Mapo Sea Police Station at around 08:57 and around 08:58, the head of the Mapo Sea Police Station at around 08:57 and twice issued a dispatch order to 123 members, who were performing duties, such as maritime guard, in the area of Jindo Coast 3, and the said order was dispatched to the scene of the Sewol ferry accident at around 123.

123 At around 09:16 on the same day while moving to the scene of the accident, Nonparty 18 was notified of the designation as a field commander (OSC, On-board-Coman) based on the Maritime Search and Rescue Manual of the Korea Coast Guard, and 123 at around 09:30.

In addition, at around 09:02, a helicopter No. 2511 (hereinafter “511 helicopter”) affiliated with the Maritime Police Agency of the Western Sea Korea Coast Guard arrived first at the scene of the Sewol ferry accident at around 09:27. B513 helicopter affiliated with the Jeju Maritime Police Agency(hereinafter “513 helicopter”) took off around 09:0 to regulate illegal fishing vessels, but entered the scene of the Sewol ferry accident at around 09:32 at around 09:32, upon receiving an instruction from the Jeju Maritime Police Agency to rescue the Sewol ferry at around 09:30, the 512 helicopter affiliated with the Maritime Police Agency of the Maritime Police Agency (hereinafter “512 helicopter”) was called out from April 15, 2014 to the scene of the accident at around 309:40 of the Chinese Maritime Police Agency’s duty of search at around 109:40 of the Chinese Maritime Police Agency’s duty of search at around 19:406.

2) Failure to take relief measures, such as Non-party 123’s failure to induce the escape of the captain, etc.

In relation to the Sewol ferry accident, Nonparty 18, designated as a field commander, shall collect basic information, such as location, name, number of passengers on board, type of distress, number of victims, number of victims, course and speed of the distressed ship, type of the ship, means of communication, etc. from the distressed ship in accordance with the Maritime Search and Rescue Manual Act. In order to ascertain the situation of human life damage when a disaster occurred, he/she shall immediately check whether to get out of the distressed ship, whether to wear life jackets, the location of the crew, etc. in accordance with the guidelines for taking measures by marine accident, have the personnel who are in charge of the rescue work investigate the scene promptly, check the response of the survivors by moving the accident to the ship on board, ask questions about the ship with a large skacker, etc., as long as it is not confirmed that there is no survival on the ship on board, and perform the salvage work without the survival of the former ship on board the ship on board the ship.

However, at around 09:30, at around 09:30, Nonparty 18 arrived at the sea in front of the Sewol ferry site, and checked the situation of the Sewol ferry directly on the two sides and opened up to 450 passengers waiting for rescue, including not only the Sewol ferry but also the sea, and even if the Sewol ferry 450 passengers were observed, there were no measures to induce passengers to get out of the ship, such as leading the crew to get out of the ship through the captain and crew of the Sewol 19:35, and the crew of the 123-ray 123 took rescue operations in a way that they moved out of the ship to the 123rd method.

3) rescue activities of heading 511, 512, and 513;

In return to the helicopter No. 511, 512, and 513, where the number of passengers listed on the Sewol ferry were 4-6 passengers in the helicopter after the aviation rescue company loaded one on the ice creamet, and the number of passengers in the helicopter was 4-6, the passengers were rescued by the same method as the passengers were returned to the west (the helicopter, which arrived at the last 512) but the other helicopter did not take measures to induce the passengers to get out of the ferry on board the ship, but the aviation rescue company did not take measures to induce the passengers to get out of the ship.

(e) The sinking of the Sewol ferry;

On April 16, 2016, the Sewol ferry was 09:34 on April 16, 2016, and the point was 52.2∑. At around 10:10, around 77.9∑, around 10:17, at around 10:17, 108.1∑.

(f) Confirmation of relevant criminal judgments

(1) A conviction of the captain and crew members of the Sewol ferry (such as murder, etc.)

On May 15, 2014, the captain, non-party 2, and crew members of the Sewol ferry were indicted of murder, etc. against the Gwangju District Court (2014Da180, 384 (merged)) on the ground that the passengers were killed without rescue measures and caused the death of the passengers (2015Do6809), and the judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on November 12, 2015 (2015Do6809) by both the prosecutor and the Defendants’ final appeal were dismissed.

In the case of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of death by abandonment of Nonparty 1 and 6, for the crime of death by abandonment of Nonparty 1 and 2 (the captain), for the crime of death by abandonment of Nonparty 2 (the captain), for the crime of life by occupational negligence of Nonparty 1 (the chief mate), for the crime of life by occupational negligence of Nonparty 1 and 3, for the crime of death by abandonment of Nonparty 5 (the second mate), for the crime of death by abandonment of Nonparty 4 (the second mate), for the crime of abandonment of Nonparty 5 and 6 (the second mate), for the crime of death by abandonment of Nonparty 1 and 7 (the second mate), for the crime of death by abandonment of Nonparty 1 and 2 years, for the crime of death by abandonment of Nonparty 1 (the chief navigator), for the crime of death by abandonment of Nonparty 1, 10 years and 15 (the second mate's death by occupational negligence) for the crime of death by abandonment of Nonparty 1, 13 years and 15 (the death by abandonment of Nonparty 1, etc.) for the last three years (the death of Nonparty 16).).

The appellate court determined that the crime of abandonment was committed against the non-party 2, on the ground that the non-party 1 did not have any instruction to get off the ship without any rescue measures to get off the ship, and the non-party 1 did not have any formality and intention even if there existed any such instruction. The appellate court determined that the non-party 1 was the crime of abandonment by applying Article 5-12 subparag. 12 subparag. 5 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 13440, Jul. 24, 2015) to the effect that the non-party 5, et al. al. were killed and went back without any rescue measures and caused the death of the passengers.

2) Judgment of conviction on the officers and employees of the Defendant Clean Shipping (Offense of Occupational Death, etc. by Occupational Negligence)

The following punishment became final and conclusive on October 29, 2015 through the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2014No509 Decided October 29, 2015), the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014No509), and the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do703 Decided October 29, 2015), and the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do703 Decided October 29, 2015), on the ground that the Sewol ferry was sunken and caused the death of passengers by occupational negligence, etc.

The name of the list in the main sentence of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 21 (Representative Director) who has been recognized as the name of the list in the main sentence, and KRW 2,00,000,000 for 7 years of imprisonment by occupational negligence, KRW 2,000,000 for 3 years of imprisonment without prison labor for occupational negligence, KRW 2,000,000 for 3 years of fine, and KRW 2,000,000 for 4 years of imprisonment by occupational negligence, KRW 2,000,000 for 4 years of death by occupational negligence, KRW 2,000,000 for 2,00 won, KRW 5,000 for 3 years of death by occupational negligence, and KRW 2,00,00 for 2 million for 2 million by occupational negligence, and KRW 2,00,00 for 2 million by occupational negligence

The above court held that the occupational negligence of the officers and employees of the defendant 21 and the crew of the defendant 2 and the crew of the defendant 2 and the crew of the defendant 2 and the crew of the defendant 2 were involved in the act of destroying the Sewol ferry and the passengers of the crew of the defendant 2 and the crew of the defendant 2 without any rescue measures, etc., resulting in the death of the passengers, and found them to have committed the death by occupational negligence.

3) The conviction of Nonparty 18 (Offense of Occupational Negligence, Death, etc.)

123 On October 6, 2014, Non-party 18 was prosecuted by Gwangju District Court 2014Kahap436 on October 6, 2014, and three years of imprisonment was finalized on November 27, 2015 through the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1610, Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1610) and the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1610, Supreme Court Decision 2010).

With respect to Nonparty 18, the appellate court acknowledged that: (a) it was possible to anticipate the consequences of the death or injury of the victims at the time of the salvage activity; and (b) it was not possible to avoid such consequences; and (c) the general level of care required for the crew to engage in the same activity and occupational category; and (d) the details of the training, rescue environment and circumstances stipulated in the relevant regulations and manuals; and (e) urgency of the situation where the maritime police officer was engaged in the rescue activity. In particular, the maritime police officer deemed the duty to prevent danger and injury to the people in the sea; (b) based on the legal doctrine that the passengers were unable to have been engaged in the rescue activity at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at 10th of the accident at the time of the accident.

(g) Implementation of a special Act on Remedy for Damage and Support for the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster;

1) On January 28, 2015, the Special Act on Remedy for Damage Caused by the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster and Support, etc. (hereinafter “Act on Remedy for Damage Caused by the Sewol Ferry”) was enforced to commemorate persons who have made a sacrifice due to the sinking of the Sewol Ferry, and promptly remedy for damage to persons who have suffered physical, mental, or economic damage, etc., and the main contents of the Act on Remedy for Damage Caused by the Sewol Ferry Disaster are as follows.

In order to verify the duty of the State to prevent disasters and to protect citizens from danger, the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster compensation deliberation committee (hereinafter referred to as the "deliberation committee") shall be established under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister in order to deliberate and resolve on matters concerning compensation, compensation, etc. with respect to the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster. Article 6 (Persons eligible for compensation and ex post facto subsidy) (1) The compensation refers to any of the following:

2) On March 31, 2015, the Deliberation Committee on Compensation and Compensation for the April 16 Sewol ferry disaster (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”) decided to pay consolation money of KRW 100,000,000 (including consolation money for bereaved families) for each victim. On June 12, 2015, it decided to separately pay consolation money of KRW 300,000,000 under Article 6(3) of the Damage Compensation for the Sewol Ferry Disaster Act (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”).

3) Some of the surviving families received compensation and ex gratia payments from the Deliberative Committee pursuant to the Damage Relief Act (a part of the surviving families filed the instant lawsuit together with the Plaintiff, who received compensation, etc. under the Damage Relief Act).

[Based on the basis of a dispute]: (a) evidence of subparagraph 1-1 through 38, 40 through 11, evidence of subparagraph 2-1 through 6, evidence of subparagraph 3-1, evidence of subparagraph 5-1 through 47, evidence of subparagraph 6-1 through 41, evidence of subparagraph 7-1 through 14, evidence of subparagraph 27-1 through 10, evidence of subparagraph 28, evidence of subparagraph 31, evidence of subparagraph 32-1 through 6, evidence of subparagraph 72-1 through 72-1, evidence of subparagraph 6-1 to 6-12, evidence of subparagraph 7-1 to 74-1, evidence of subparagraph 7-1 to 79, evidence of subparagraph 84-1 to 4, evidence of subparagraph 2-1 to 8-2, evidence of subparagraph 1-2, evidence of subparagraph 8-1, evidence of subparagraph 8-2, evidence of subparagraph 8-1-2, evidence of subparagraph 9-2, evidence

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. State liability of Defendant Republic of Korea

1) An unlawful act committed by Nonparty 123 by negligence in the course of performing his duties

Article 5 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers stipulates that a police officer may take measures under each of the following subparagraphs in cases where a dangerous situation is likely to inflict harm on human life or body, or cause serious damage to property, and thus granting the police officer authority to perform his/her duties at his/her discretion. However, in light of the purport and purpose of granting such authority to a police officer and where it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable for a police officer to not take necessary measures according to specific circumstances to exercise such authority, the non-exercise of such authority is deemed to be in violation of his/her duty and thus illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da16890, Aug. 25, 1998; 2017Da228083, Nov. 9, 2017).

In light of the above facts, Nonparty 18, as the captain of the Maritime Police Agency of the Maritime Police Agency, was at least 123 rescue units, which were located within the boundary of the maritime police station in the Maritime Police Agency of the Maritime Police Agency, and the duty to promptly search and rescue the passengers in accordance with the relevant statutes, such as the Act on the Rescue and Rescue at Sea and in the River Act, and the Maritime Police Manual, when a disaster, such as the sinking of a ship or the fear of human life damage caused by the sinking of a ship, etc., and the duty to promptly search and rescue the passengers, etc. In particular, the number of passengers exceeding 40 persons aboard the 400 persons was aboard the sea, and the duty to promptly search and rescue the passengers on the Maritime Police Agency of the Maritime Police Agency of the Maritime Police Agency of the Maritime Police Agency of the Maritime Police Agency of the Republic of Korea, and the duty to guide the passengers on the Maritime Police Agency of the Maritime Police Agency of the 10th anniversary of the duty to rescue the passengers on the 10th.

(ii)the causal relationship with the death caused by the Sewol ferry accident;

If the content of a public official’s duty imposed on a public official is not merely for the public interest or for the purpose of protecting the safety and interests of an individual of the members of the society, but entirely or incidentally, the State shall be liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the victim due to the public official’s breach of such duty to the extent that proximate causal relation is acknowledged. In determining the existence of proximate causal relation, the State shall comprehensively take into account not only the probability of the occurrence of a general result, but also the purpose of Acts and subordinate statutes and other rules of conduct imposing on the official duty, the form of the harmful act, and the degree of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6267

In this case, considering the following facts: (a) the purpose of the law that imposes official duties on the coast guard; (b) the authority and responsibility granted to Nonparty 18 as the field commander; (c) the number of passengers aboard the Sewol ferry; (d) the number of passengers aboard the Sewol ferry; (d) the time at which the accident occurred; (d) the time at which the rescue force arrived at the scene of the Sewol ferry accident; and (e) the degree of damage caused by the Sewol ferry accident; and (e) the fact that the conviction of Nonparty 18 was finalized after being indicted of the crime of occupational injury on account of non-party 18’s breach of duty of care and the result of the death of the sacrifers, it is determined that there

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Defendant Republic of Korea is liable to compensate for damages suffered by Nonparty 18’s public officials belonging to the Ganpo Maritime Police Station due to the negligent illegal act committed by Nonparty 18 in the course of performing his/her duties.

The plaintiffs asserted that the state liability based on a public official's illegal act as shown in the attached list 3 is 8 weeks with respect to the Sewol ferry accident, but all of them are not accepted for the same reasons as indicated in the same list.

B. Liability for damages by Defendant Cheongh Shipping

According to the facts established above, it is recognized that the victims of this case who were aboard the Sewol ferry due to the act of the non-party 21, the representative director of the defendant's Cheongju Shipping, and the officers and employees of the defendant's Cheongju Shipping (the non-party 22, the non-party 23, the non-party 24, the non-party 25, the non-party 26, the non-party 26, the non-party 1) went on the Sewol ferry in the condition of the load and the string of the cargo, and the employees of the defendant's Cheongju Shipping (the non-party 2, the non-party 14) committed the act of the non-party 21 on the part of the non-party 3, the non-party 21 on the part of the non-party 21 on the part of the non-party 21 on the part of the non-party 1 on the part of the defendant's family members on the part of the non-party 9).

C. Establishment of joint tort by the Defendants

In the case of a joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act which causes damage to another person jointly, the joint tort does not require not require any awareness among the actors, as well as any joint tort. However, if the joint tort is objectively related to the joint act, it is sufficient if the joint tort is jointly related, and the joint tort which is liable for the damages caused by the joint act related to the joint act is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da13900, Sept. 29, 200).

In the case of the Sewol ferry accident of this case, if the aforementioned illegal acts committed by the officers and employees of the defendant's office and the illegal acts committed by the officers and employees of the 123 regular non-party 18, respectively, meet the requirements for the illegal acts, and as long as they are jointly related to the death of the victims of this case and objectively, joint illegal acts committed between the defendants.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants jointly are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages caused by the death of the victims of this case.

3. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate statements, the period for calculating the amount of damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis, and in principle, the period for calculating the amount of damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 10 shall be discarded. The current price calculation at the time of the accident shall be in accordance with the simple interest rate which deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month. And it shall be rejected that the parties’ arguments have not separately explained.

(a) Actual income:

1) Personal information: Each “basic information” column in the attached Form 4 damages calculation sheet.

(b) Income and operating period: the application of the average urban daily wage, the 22th day of each month;

(iii) Cost of living: 1/3 mutual aid;

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

4) Calculation: Each “actual income” column of attached Table 4 for calculation of damages and 10 per week.

(b) consolation money;

1) It can be sufficiently recognized in light of the empirical rule that the victims were killed due to the Sewol ferry accident of this case and the plaintiffs, such as their parents, siblings, grandparents, etc., suffered considerable mental suffering. Thus, the defendants have a duty to avoid their mental suffering.

2) Furthermore, we examine the amount of consolation money.

A) In calculating consolation money due to a tort, it is consistent with the principle of fair compensation for damages, which is in accord with the principle of fair compensation for damages, considering the situation of the victim, such as the victim's age, occupation, social status, property and living conditions, degree of suffering from damage, degree of negligence, motive for harmful act, cause, situation of the perpetrator, status of the offender, social status, age, and attitude of the perpetrator after the accident, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da7149, Dec. 24, 2009, etc.). In particular, large-scale accidents are likely to cause lack of safety expected as a matter of course, and there is little concern for the victim's negligence to be involved in the illegal nature, and disputes related to the cause of the accident, location of responsibility, and compensation have a tendency to continue for a long time. Thus, it is highly necessary to take into account that the State and the bereaved family have extensive mental suffering, and that the State and the bereaved family have extensive social uncertainty, and that there is a significant and social uncertainty in the occurrence of the accident.

B) The incident of the Sewol ferry, i.e., the typical special circumstances of the above large disaster, i.e., ① the officers and employees of the Defendant Cheong-do caused the disaster that would lose their restoration power in the course of the disaster by leaving the Sewol ferry in the state of overfluence. The captain and crew of the Sewol ferry ordered the passengers to leave the ship first, and then they failed to perform their duty to protect the lives and safety of the people, such as failing to implement the necessary measures to induce the passengers to leave the ship. As a result, the victims of the instant accident failed to know the specific circumstances, and led to the death of the passengers waiting for the rescue force in the ship. ② The victims of the instant accident were to have been able to receive damages from the accident of the Sewol ferry since around 08:48 on April 16, 2016, and the victims were able to suffer from considerable mental distress and injury, and the Plaintiffs were able to receive damages from the accident of the accident of the Sewol ferry until 10:31 on the date of the accident.

However, the Deliberation Committee decided consolation money of KRW 100,000 per victim (including consolation money for bereaved families). Some of the bereaved families agreed to receive consolation money and agreed to do so and have a judicial compromise between the defendant Republic of Korea and his bereaved families (Article 16 of the Damage Relief Act). It is also necessary to consider equity with them. It is also necessary to consider that 300 bereaved families of KRW 210,000 to KRW 250,000 per family among 304 victims of the Sewol ferry accident were paid to the bereaved families of KRW 300 among 304 victims.

In addition, in consideration of the age of the victims of this case, the relationship between the victims of this case and the plaintiffs, etc., the consolation money shall be determined as follows.

C) the amount of recognition

(1) Except as seen in subsection (2) below, consolation money shall be determined as follows:

① Persons who have made the instant sacrifice: KRW 200,000,000, respectively.

(2) Spouse (Plaintiff 354): 80,000,000 won

③ Parental parents (excluding Plaintiffs 24, 27, 141, 248, 283, 316, 335, 342, 349, and 351): 40,000,000 won, respectively.

(4) Children (Plaintiff 355): 20,000,000 won

⑤ brothers and sisters (including double-income brothers and sisters, 34, 336, 337, and 338): Each KRW 10,000,000 (Plaintiffs 346 claimed consolation money of KRW 20,000,000, but it cannot be deemed that there should be more special amount than other brothers and sisters. Thus, only KRW 10,00,000 should be recognized).

(6) A co-parent (foreign) living together: Ten thousand won,000,000 won each, respectively.

(7) Non-living (foreign) grandparents: 5,000,000 won, respectively.

8. Foreign Ginseng Village (Plaintiff 145) and Lee Gon (Plaintiff 174): 5,000,000 won, respectively.

(2) The amount recognized in consideration of individual circumstances

In addition to the following individual circumstances, the following consolation money shall be determined:

① Plaintiffs 24, 27, 141, 248, 283, 335, and 349

Plaintiff 248 (referring to the victim) died on October 26, 2014, which was after the Sewol ferry accident, and the spouse did not separately seek consolation money for the above plaintiffs, taking into account the fact that the spouse (the victim) died before the Sewol ferry accident, and the remaining plaintiffs were dead before the Sewol ferry accident, the consolation money for the above plaintiffs shall be set at KRW 50,000,000, respectively.

② Plaintiffs 176, 208

Plaintiff 176 is the mother of the deceased non-party 3 and Plaintiff 208 as the mother of the deceased non-party 34, and considering the fact that the period of fostering seems to be relatively short, the consolation money for the above plaintiffs shall be determined as KRW 20,000,000, respectively.

③ Plaintiff 312

Plaintiff 312 is determined as KRW 10,000,000 in consideration of the fact that the deceased Nonparty 35 was the father of the deceased Nonparty 35 and that the deceased Nonparty 36, who brought up Nonparty 35 for four and three months after divorce, received compensation from the Deliberation Committee.

④ Plaintiffs 316, 342, and 351

Considering the fact that the degree of contribution to the fostering of victims is deemed to be low compared to the spouse after divorce, the above Plaintiffs shall determine the consolation money for the above Plaintiffs as KRW 30,000,000, respectively.

⑤ Plaintiffs 334, 336, 337, and 338

As brothers and sisters of the deceased non-party 37, the above plaintiffs shall be determined as 5,00,000 won each in consideration of the fact that they had been expected to have been divided into adults at the time of the Sewol ferry accident.

(c) Inheritance relationship;

(i)the amount of inheritance coverage;

Each "property damage + consolation material" in the attached Table 4 calculation sheet shall be as stated in the part corresponding to the deceased.

2) Legal shares in inheritance

In full view of the evidence Nos. 1-1 through 18, 20 through 38, 40 through 70, 72 through 11, 1-1, 27-1 through 10, 28, 31, 32-1 through 6, 84-1 through 4, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1, 2, 87-1, 87-1, 2, 88-1, 2, 89, 93, and 94-1, 56, 219, and 220, 32-1, and 32-1, 32-1 through 6, 84-1, 85-2, and 86-1, 87-1, 87-1, 89, 93, and 94-20, it can be found that there exists an inheritance share same as an inheritance share in the separate sheet of damages.

(iii) shares of inheritance due to division of inherited property;

A) Facts of recognition

① Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 19-19 and evidence Nos. 90-1-1, Plaintiff 56 and Nonparty 39, the deceased Nonparty 38’s father, who was the deceased Nonparty 38’s father, and Nonparty 56, the mother Nonparty 39, were raising the deceased Nonparty 38 during the divorce process on August 28, 2015, etc., it can be recognized that the deceased Nonparty 38 agreed to divide the damages by the proportion of 8 (Plaintiff 56) and 56 (Plaintiff 39).

② According to the purport of the evidence No. 1-71, No. 91-1, and No. 91-2 and the whole arguments, Plaintiff 220, the deceased non-party 40’s put together with Plaintiff 219, who was the deceased non-party 40, was divided on August 2, 2017 after the Sewol ferry accident, as the result of the division of the property at the time of divorce on August 2, 2017, “△△△△△ apartment is owned by Plaintiff 219, and Plaintiff 220 was owned by Plaintiff 220, while Plaintiff 220 was owned by Plaintiff 26,00,000, and Plaintiff 220 was paid to Plaintiff 219, and the deceased non-party 40 was divided by the proportion of Plaintiff 6 (Plaintiff 219) and 220.”

B) Determination

According to each of the above facts, the reasons for the agreement between plaintiffs 56, 39, 219, and 220 to divide the damages for each of the above children appears to have been aimed at promoting a specific equity among the above parties. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that each of the above children's damages can be exceptionally subject to division of inherited property (see Supreme Court Order 2014SS122, May 4, 2016, etc.). Since the portion of the plaintiff 56's inheritance 4/5, and the portion of the plaintiff 219's inheritance 3/5, and the portion of the plaintiff 220's inheritance 2/5 (the defendant's assertion that the damages are not subject to division of inherited property is rejected).

4) Calculation: Each “amount of inheritance” column in attached Form 4 of the computation of damages.

D. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) Whether the scope of individual responsibility is limited

Defendant Republic of Korea asserts to the purport that, on the grounds that the responsibility of Defendant 1’s cargo is minor, Defendant 2’s cargo should be restricted individually on the grounds that “the blocking of access to information”, “monst and inspection”, etc. after the Sewol ferry accident claimed by the Plaintiffs were conducted by the Republic of Korea, and that it is irrelevant to the Defendant 2’s marine transportation, and that the legal responsibility for the sinking of the Sewol ferry is not limited to the Defendants, and that it is difficult to view that the legal liability for the sinking of the Sewol ferry is limited only to the Defendants (the purport that the cargo ordered by the Defendant should be recognized

In addition, the defendant's cargo claims that it is reasonable that the defendant's cargo will bear only the amount exceeding the amount of compensation provided by the damage remedy law in accordance with the purport of the damage compensation law for the Sewol ferry.

However, the joint tort liability does not individually seek damages from each individual act of the perpetrator, but is to enforce the liability for the joint tort jointly committed by the perpetrator. As such, the scope of the liability for damages from the joint tort shall be determined by comprehensively evaluating all the acts of the tortfeasor in relation to the victim. The amount of the compensation for damages shall be borne by each tortfeasor. Even if the degree of the processing of the tort is minor compared to the other tortfeasor, the scope of the tortfeasor's liability cannot be limited as part of the amount of compensation as set forth above in relation to the victim. (See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da13900 delivered on September 29, 200, etc.). Accordingly, the defendants' above assertion against this is rejected.

2) Whether the consumer's insurance money is deducted

As of April 20, 2016, Defendant Republic of Korea claimed that the victims, other than one victim, who died from the Sewol ferry accident as of April 20, 2016, received insurance proceeds of KRW 100,000 per capita from the Dong Fire Co., Ltd., which entered into a group tour insurance contract, and the remainder of one victim may be paid if he/she claims insurance proceeds. Thus, Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the amount of damages should be calculated in consideration of the amount of damages.

However, even in cases where a third party is liable to compensate for damages due to illegal acts or nonperformance of obligations in connection with the death of an insurance premium already paid, it does not constitute an interest to be deducted as a offsetting profit and loss (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da25061, Nov. 24, 1998, etc.). Therefore, it is unnecessary to consider the consumer's insurance money paid to the victim of this case in calculating the amount of compensation for damages. Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant Republic of Korea is rejected.

E. Sub-committee

The final amount of damages shall be as specified in each "final sum" column of the attached Table 4 damages calculation sheet (attached Form 2 "personal amount").

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to jointly pay to the Plaintiffs 5% interest per annum under the Civil Act from April 16, 2014, which is the date of the Sewol ferry accident, to July 19, 2018, and 15% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

[Attachment 2] List: omitted

[Attachment 3] Judgment on the Plaintiffs’ argument on the Defendant’s Republic of Korea: omitted

[Attachment 4] Calculation Table of Damages: Omitted

Judges Lee Sung-hee (Presiding Judge)

1) Goods weight means the maximum weight that can be loaded on board a ship in light of its condition, such as containers, cargoes, and vehicles.

Note 2) Maximum goods weight means the sum of weight of seafarers, passengers, cargoes, fuel, water, food, etc. that the hulls can load up to her full draft (the maximum load allowed for safe navigation).

3) According to Article 39 of the former Ship Safety Act and Article 39 of the Sewol ferry operation management regulations, the method of loading containers is to set the home of the lower part of the container installed on the floor when vertical loading is carried, to set it up on the upper and lower side of the container after installing X-raying, and to set it on the upper and lower part of the container by the same method as that of the first set after setting up a string on the upper part of the container, and to set it by linking both two upper parts of the two upper parts of the container at the time of horizontal loading with the same method as that of the first set.

4) Since the employees of the cooking division and one person who died from the sea immediately after the commencement of the Sewol ferry are not included in the victims of this case, the part concerning them shall be excluded from the discussion.

5) If the captain or crew of a ship who commits a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to the transportation of a ship under Article 2 of the Maritime Safety Act, runs away without taking measures under the proviso to Article 18 (1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea (the Act on Search and Rescue at Sea) of the same Act, such as aiding and abetting victims, etc., the following aggravated punishments shall be imposed:

6) The first instance court deemed that Article 5-12 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes does not apply to the captain and crew of a vessel in distress. However, the appellate court determined that the above crime was also applied to the captain and crew of a vessel in distress in light of the legal text and the enactment process, etc. of the above provision.

Note 7) The part against Co-Defendant 27 was reversed and remanded, but all of the officers and employees of the Defendant’s office were dismissed.

Note 8) We examine the allegations indicated in the General Briefs on April 24, 2018, for which the plaintiffs finally organized the causes of the claims.

9) In light of the fact that the Sewol ferry did not overcome the departure slope (the external slope) that occurred in the course of the invasion and caused the departure slope of the latitude to the port side, it is evident that at the time of the accident, it did not meet the restoration standard determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries that “the restoration unit (GZ10) in the latitude 10∑ above the slope by the fleet would be the slope of the fleet,” and thus, it is not accepted the allegation of the Defendant Cheongh Shipping to the effect that it did not violate Article 28(1) of the former Ship Safety Act.

(10) Defendant Republic of Korea expressed the opinion that there is no dispute in the legal brief dated May 17, 2018 on the Plaintiffs’ calculation details. However, Plaintiff 158 and 159 calculated the lost income on the premise that the deceased Nonparty 32 is a female, but the deceased Nonparty 32 was a male (Evidence 1-2) and accordingly, calculated the lost income.