beta
Main Issues
The scope of "other persons" in Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act;
Summary of Judgment
Since both the perpetrator and the victim are serving in a special power relationship as a soldier, they cannot be viewed as excluding the application of the State Compensation Act (Law No. 231 of September 8, 51).
[Reference Provisions]
Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act
Plaintiff-Appellee
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Defendant-Appellant
Countries
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 65Na2563 delivered on July 20, 1966
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal by the defendant ○○○○ are examined.
Inasmuch as both Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 were serving in a special power relationship as a soldier, it cannot be deemed that Nonparty 2 consented to the same risk as that of this case at the time of enlistment in active duty service, and it cannot be deemed that Nonparty 2 excluded the adaptation of the State Compensation Act. Therefore, the argument is groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court