B. The case holding that there was no negligence on the above death in the sense that the person who received the above order was unable to anticipate the above accident, in the case where the person who received the above order was ordered to be satisfe at the required shooting point due to the satisfe at the required shooting range due to the satisfe by the shooting range source, because he received the satisfeing order by the shooting range source.

The case held that there was no negligence in relation to the above death in the sense that it was impossible for the person who received the above order to expect the above accident because he could not expect the above accident because he could not expect the above accident because he could not expect the above accident because he could not expect the above accident because he sent the shooting order to the shooting range by the shooting range.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Seoul Civil Area, Seoul High Court Decision 71Na121 delivered on September 30, 1971

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the non-party 7 team of this case, who is a Vietnam War Veterans' team under the control of the Vietnam War Veterans' team, was removed from the request shooting team of this case (which was received only at the time and not yet ordered) and delivered the shooting order by the request shooting team of this case to the above cable, and thus, it cannot be viewed that there was a contradiction between the above non-party 1's negligence and the victim's death, and it cannot be viewed that there was a contradiction between the above non-party 1's negligence and the victim's death, but it cannot be viewed that there was a contradiction between the non-party 1's negligence and the non-party 1's death, and it cannot be viewed that there was a contradiction between the non-party 1's negligence and the non-party 1's death, and that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the relation with the non-party 1's accident since the non-party 1 did not know that there was an accident.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of appeal.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)