A soldier working on the boundary and duty is responsible for handling firearms and State's compensation to get off his/her duty.

In cases where a soldier on the duty of a military unit who is on the duty of a military unit with a firearms launchs a gun for the purpose of breaking away from his/her duty and destroying another soldier, he/she cannot be said to perform his/her duty.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1758 delivered on December 6, 1966 (Kakaddd 2341; Supreme Court Decision 14No307 delivered on June 14, 196; Decision 67Da785 delivered on June 20, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 575Da 1575 delivered on June 20, 196; Decision 15 ② 90 delivered on June 20, 196; Decision 2(58)69 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (67A844) of the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 67Da844)

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above cancellation are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 718,984 won, 50,000 won, 30,000 won to the plaintiff 4, and 50,000 won with an annual rate of 5% from July 2, 196 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and a judgment of provisional execution

Judgment like the Disposition

(1) According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 (Judgment) and Nos. 4 (Verification Report) without dispute over its establishment, the 11st group of the first group of the Army and the 140 workers belonging to the 12nd group of the 11st group of the Army were in possession of the 11st group of the 12th group of the 11st group of the Army, and the 12th group of the 11st group of the 12nd group of the 1966 group of the 11st group of the 11st group of the 11st group of the 11st group of the 12nd group of the 11st group of the 12nd group of the 196th group of the 3nd group of the 3nd group of the 400 group of the 1st group of the 3nd group of the 196th group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 10th group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 1st group of the 6th group of the bar.

(2) The plaintiffs asserted that they are responsible for compensating the plaintiffs due to the negligence committed by the non-party 1, the soldier, and therefore, the defendant is responsible for compensating for the plaintiffs' losses. However, according to the above acknowledged facts, the non-party 1, who was in possession by the non-party 1, who went beyond the boundary duty and shoots the knick gun with no relation to the above boundary duty, and the accident occurred. Thus, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the victim's non-party 1, et al., cannot be viewed as an act of holding the non-party 1, as a mother or an act of performing official duties. Further, the plaintiff 1, the victim's non-party 1, et al., caused the non-party 1 to perform the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's act.

(3) Thus, the plaintiffs' claims in the principal lawsuit on the premise that the defendant is liable for compensation for damages should be dismissed because it is not necessary to determine the remainder of the claims. Since the original judgment partially accepted the plaintiffs' claims and concluded, the original judgment has different conclusions, the plaintiff's claims against the defendant in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be revoked, and the part against the defendant in the original judgment against the defendant in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles

Judges Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)