205 Gaz. 15974 Claims for damages, etc.

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

March 21, 2006

April 4, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay 17,50,000 won to the plaintiff 1 and 5,000,000 won to the plaintiff 2 as well as 5% per annum from October 12, 2005 to April 4, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and 20% is borne by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 139,607,213 won, 10,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from October 12, 2005 to the delivery date of the complaint, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 10 through Eul evidence 15 (including provisional number).

A. On October 12, 2005, the police officer 1, 2, and 3, who belongs to the Suwon-nam Police Station Demal Police Team, were arrested on the non-party's residence of the non-party on the 10th floor of Daegu-gu Am20 on October 15:20, 2005 as a suspect of robbery that occurred on July 3, 2005 from Suwon-si, Suwon-nam Police Station, from Suwon-nam Police Station to Suwon-nam Police Station, and the non-party was arrested on the non-party's residence of the non-party on the 10th floor of Daegu-gu Am20 on July 10, 2005.

B. The Nonparty, upon the direction of the police officer, set up an apartment entrance in accordance with the police officer’s 2, and opened the entrance before and out of the entrance, and used the gap where the police officer 1 and the police officer 3 was negligent in surveillance by breaking and breaking the gate, etc., the Nonparty: (a) 2 of the police officers was pushed down the police officer 2 by shouldering the gate and the body of the police officer; and (b) her escape into and out of the corridor, and died from the ground by falling down above the hallway of 14 meters away from 14 meters away from the hallway at the front of the police officer’s direction; and (c) died by falling down on the ground.

C. As the Nonparty escaped as above, not only 2 police officers, but also 1/police officers, who reported a new attack, failed to prevent the fall of the highest seat, although they got away from the front seat immediately.

D. The corridor width of the instant accident site is about 133 cm and a railing is about 115 cm, and if a young male, such as the Nonparty, overlaps with his body, he can easily move beyond the rail even if he is on the wall.

E. In the disciplinary committee related to the instant accident, the police officer 1 was subject to reprimand, and the police officer 2. The police officer 3 was subject to dismissal and instruction.

F. As the mother of the Nonparty, Plaintiff 1 paid KRW 2.5 million as funeral expenses of the Nonparty, and Plaintiff 2 is the Nonparty’s leakage.

(g) Of the rules on confinement and escort of suspects, the provisions relevant to this case are as follows:

Article 50 (Gambling of Persons Sent under Guard) (1) Before departure of the escorting government office, the escorting officer shall always keep the person under guard and capture him/her on board before departure from the escorting government office.

Article 56 (Do Protection and Escort) When escorting a person under guard to the Do newsletter, it shall be as follows:

1. In cases of escorting one person under guard, the person under guard shall take the line in hand from a location on the left or right side of the person under guard to the acceptance authority or the specific person;

Article 63 (Duties of Escorts) The Escorts shall faithfully perform the following during the service of escort:

2. Prevention of escape, destruction of evidence, self-injury, act of suicide, etc. of an inmate under guard;

2. Determination

A. Since a suspect who has been arrested in an investigative agency due to a suspicion of a crime of liability for damages is likely to engage in a sudden act, such as suicide or self-harm, etc., due to fear of fear of punishment, a police officer who escorts a arrested suspect is obligated to prevent any contingent accident, such as suicide or self-harm, by sufficiently grasping the psychological condition of the suspect under his/her protection and monitoring the suspect's behavior in a detailed manner.

However, the police officer 1 et al., who is a police officer, in the course of the emergency arrest and arrest of the non-party who is the suspect of the robbery at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, shall prevent any contingent accident by carefully monitoring the non-party in his post or on the visvise. However, the police officer 2 opened the entrance before the police officer, and the police officer 1/the police officer 3, who is the non-party, neglected surveillance in the process of following the Non-party's report on the new attack on the part of the non-party, and failed to prevent the non-party from falling down on the ground because the non-party 2 was pushed down and escaped, while the non-party 2 was pushed down, and the escape exceeded the corridor rail. Therefore, the accident in this case is an accident that occurred due to the negligence in the course of performing his duty that the escort police officer must exercise as a matter of course. Thus, the defendant

(b) Scope of damages;

(1) The non-party's lost income and consolation money part

Although the non-party was arrested and detained under the protection of police officers, and had been in an abnormal psychological state due to fear of punishment, the non-party's death was merely an intentional result. However, the plaintiffs' claim in this case was based on the police officer's negligence in the escorting that the non-party did not block the non-party's suicide, and seeking compensation for damages incurred to the defendant on the ground that the non-party did not prevent his suicide, is contrary to the good faith principle. Thus, the non-party's claim for lost income and consolation money among the claims in this case is without merit.

(2) Funeral expenses of Plaintiff 1 and consolation money unique to the Plaintiffs

Since the Plaintiff 1’s 2.5 million won paid as funeral expenses and the Plaintiffs’ inherent consolation money are separate from the Nonparty’s damages, this part of the claim cannot be viewed as contrary to the good faith principle.

(A) Funeral expenses paid by the plaintiff 1: 2.5 million won

(B) Consolation money: taking into account the family relationship, age, property, and level of education of the Nonparty and the Plaintiffs, the circumstances and results of the instant accident, and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 shall be determined at KRW 15 million, and KRW 5 million.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 17.5 million (the funeral expenses + KRW 2.5 million + the consolation money + KRW 15 million), and to pay to the plaintiff 2 the amount of KRW 5 million from October 12, 2005, the date when the accident occurred, to April 4, 2006, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim in this case is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge, Gimsung

Judges Park Jae-won

Judges Kim Jong-young