[1] The requirements for the State to compensate for damages caused by a public official’s breach of official duties

[2] The case holding that there is a proximate causal relation between the negligence in the management of a manager's excessive coal and the victim's damage caused by the criminal act in a case where the leaked coal leaked from a military unit was used for criminal act

[1] If the contents of official duties imposed on a public official are not merely for the public interest or for the purpose of regulating the internal order of an administrative agency, but entirely or incidentally established for the purpose of protecting the safety and interest of an individual of members of society, the State shall be liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the victim due to the public official’s breach of such official duties to the extent that proximate causal relation is acknowledged. In determining the existence of proximate causal relation, not only the probability of the occurrence of the results, but also the purpose of Acts and subordinate statutes and other rules of conduct imposing official duties, the form

[2] The case holding that there is a proximate causal relation between the damage suffered by the victim and the negligence in the management of the person responsible for management of the excessive carbon caused by the criminal act, since the person responsible for management of the firearms, ammunition, and explosives used in the military unit could have sufficiently predicted that the leakage of firearms, etc. outside the military can result in infringing on the lives and bodies of the individual citizens if they were used in criminal acts due to the leakage of firearms, etc. outside the military due to their storage and management negligence

[1] Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da36285 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 667), Supreme Court Decision 94Da15646 delivered on April 11, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1830), Supreme Court Decision 97Da12907 delivered on September 9, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 305) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 80Da3201 delivered on July 23, 1981 (Gong14202 delivered on July 9, 1985) (Gong1106), Supreme Court Decision 84Da1115 delivered on July 29, 198 (Gong1985, 1106)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Won-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na34964 delivered on October 2, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

원심은, 원고 1은 1994. 11. 18. 04:30경 고양시 주교동에 있는 자율방범초소 안에서 고장난 출입문을 약 30∼40㎝ 열어 두고 자율방범활동을 하고 있던 중, 신원을 알 수 없는 자가 방범초소의 출입문 사이로 폭음탄을 도화선에 점화하여 밀어넣는 것을 발견하고 급히 이를 집어들어 초소 밖으로 던지려 하였으나 그 순간 폭음탄이 폭발하는 바람에 결국 왼쪽 손목을 절단하는 상해를 입게 된 사실, 위 폭음탄은 군부대에서 야외전술 훈련 때 수류탄 대용으로 사용할 목적으로 소외 주식회사 한화에 의뢰하여 제작한 '폭음통 ＫＭ80'인데, 도화선에 점화하여 투척하면 점화 4∼6초 후 폭음과 연막이 발생하고, 그 위력은 손에 가까운 곳에서 폭발할 경우 손목이 직접 절단되지는 않지만 그 폭음의 위력에 의하여 손과 혈관이 파열되어 결국 손목을 절단할 수밖에 없는 경우가 많으므로, 안전수칙상 점화 후 즉시 투척하고 5ｍ 이상 떨어진 곳으로 대피하여야 하는 사실, 위 폭음탄은 위 소외 회사가 1987. 8. 28. 롯트(LOT)번호 '한화-87사771-025'로 생산하여 1군 59 탄약대대 592 ASP에 납품한 140,000발 중의 하나인데, 위 592 ASP는 위 140,000발의 폭음탄을 일반 탄약과 동일하게 시설탄약고에 보관하다가 연간 교육용 탄약 할당량에 따라 조금씩 1군 지역 내 다른 ASP 및 직접 지원부대인 20사단, 원주, 양평 등 부대로 공급함으로써 1994. 9. 12.까지 위 140,000발 전량이 군부대에 공급되었던 사실 등을 인정한 후, 위 인정 사실에 의하면 이 사건 폭음탄은 592 ASP가 위 소외 회사로부터 인계받은 후 군부대에 공급되어 보관중이던 것을 군부대 관리책임자의 관리소홀로 성명미상자에 의하여 군 외부로 유출되었다고 봄이 상당하다고 판단하였는바, 관련 증거들에 의하면 원심의 위 인정과 판단은 정당하고, 원심판결에 논하는 바와 같은 채증법칙 위반, 심리미진, 법리오해 등의 위법이 있다고 볼 수 없다. 논지는 이유가 없다.

2. On the second ground for appeal

If the content of official duties imposed on a public official is not merely for the public interest or for the purpose of regulating the internal order of an administrative agency, but entirely or incidentally established to protect the safety and interest of an individual member of society, the State shall be liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the victim due to the public official’s breach of such official duties 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 official duties

As firearms, ammunition, explosives, etc. are dangerous objects that can be used as weapons for human life, general people are prohibited from possessing them in principle (the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act). Since strict management regulations are stipulated inside the military to prepare for theft or loss and to punish the loss of firearms, etc., Article 74 of the Military Criminal Act (Article 74 of the Military Criminal Act). Since firearms, ammunition, explosives, etc. are leaked to the outside of the military due to their storage and management negligence, the person in charge of management of firearms, ammunition, explosives, etc. can sufficiently anticipate that such criminal acts may result in infringing on the lives and bodies of individual citizens.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that held to the same purport is just, and there is no reason to interpret the above legal principles.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)