Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Choi Chang-deok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

May 19, 2011 (Defendant 1 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1)

October 11, 2011 (for the defendant against the Republic of Korea),

1. Defendant 1 (Inwards) pays to Plaintiff 1 58,00,000 won, 55,000,000 won to Plaintiff 2, and 3,000,000 won to Plaintiff 3, and 5% per annum from March 22, 2011 to October 20, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 1 and 1, respectively, 16,028,243 won out of the above KRW 58 million, and to Plaintiff 2, 15,728,243 won out of the above KRW 55 million, and to Plaintiff 3, 300,000 won out of the above KRW 3 million, and to each of the above money, 5% per annum from March 22, 2011 to October 20, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1 (the "Occiny") shall be borne by the defendant 1 (the "Occiny") and the 2/3 of the part incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remaining 1/3 shall be borne by the defendant Korea

5. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article may be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay 58 million won to the Plaintiff 1, 55 million won to the Plaintiff 2, and 3 million won to the Plaintiff 3 with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day of the final service of the copy of the complaint of this case until the day of the pronouncement of the judgment of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) The attempt to kidnapping Defendant 1 (ex-postman) and the reduction report by police officers;

1) Defendant 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party”) was arrested a female and frightened to raise money with his body value. On June 16, 2010, Defendant 1: (a) driven a white learning car and returned to the Daegu Suwon-gu Unit; and (b) discovered Nonparty 3 fright around △ apartment located in ( Address 2 omitted) around 3:00 on the same day; (c) opened a door door for the said car after Nonparty 3 fright away from the said car; (d) opened the back fright of the said car; (e) opened the back fright door for the said car; and (e) prevented Nonparty 3 from breaking the face of Nonparty 3 by drinking; and (e) opened a door for Nonparty 3’s escape; and (e) opened a door for Nonparty 3.

2) immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, Nonparty 3 reported that the instant case was committed to the 112 reporting center due to the aid of nearby apartment security guards. Thereafter, Nonparty 3 stated that Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 5, who was dispatched to the site of the instant case, were arrested by himself to Defendant 1 (the Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 5, who was the assistant assistant belonging to △△ District, and that he escaped to Defendant 1. However, Nonparty 6, who was the patrol team leader of △△ District, reported the instant case to the upper part as a simple injury case, not an attempted crime, and Nonparty 7 did not actively investigate the said case by treating the said case as a simple injury case, without being aware of the said reduction report.

(b) Hijacking Defendant 1 (exponer): Hijacking Defendant 1 (exponer);

1) Even after the crime of attempted kidnapping, Defendant 1 (Woo-man) driven the said vehicle and moved back to Daegu Suwon-gu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, which had been committing the crime. On June 23, 2010, Defendant 1: (a) induced Nonparty 8 (Woo, Aug. 19, 1985, hereinafter “the deceased”) who was seated on the road near the place where the crime of the crime was committed; and (b) carried the vehicle at the top of the said vehicle. After that, Defendant 1 (Woo-man) set up the said vehicle near the lane of the said vehicle and carried the vehicle to make it possible for the deceased to bring the deceased’s son-gu, who was in contact with the deceased, to have the face and the appearance of the deceased, who was on the part of the deceased, and was unable to bring the deceased’s son’s son and the deceased’s son’s son at a transparent tape in advance so that the deceased’s son’s son and the deceased’s son could not be her back.

2) 피고 1(대판:소외인)은 같은 날 04:30경 대구 달성군 하빈면 감문리 ◈◈고개 ◐◐산 등산로 입구 앞 위 승용차 안에서 망인을 1회 강간하고, 같은 날 07:46경 망인의 휴대폰을 이용하여 원고 1, 원고 2(이하 ‘원고 부부’라 한다)에게 전화하여 ‘딸을 인질로 데리고 있으니 12시까지 현금 6,000만 원을 망인의 계좌로 송금하라’며 망인의 몸값을 요구하였다. 원고 부부는 같은 날 7:56경 망인의 납치사실을 경찰에 신고하였다.

(c) The background leading up to the arrest of Defendant 1 (explosion):

1) The △ Police Station Team, which was called the deceased’s house upon the report of the Plaintiff’s husband and wife, prepared a telephone call recording and tracking numbers in preparation for additional money and valuables demand calls, and the strong 2 team of the police station was to track the location of the deceased’s cell phone and to register the deceased’s account as an illegal account so that the payment of the deposit is suspended, while the transaction of the deceased’s account was notified to the police. Since then, when the location tracking of the deceased’s cell phone was identified as the result of the location tracking the deceased’s cell phone, the police had the Plaintiff’s husband and wife deposited KRW 2 million in the deceased’s account in order to secure investigation data by inducing the Defendant 1(s) and to secure the investigation data, the police had the Plaintiff’s husband and wife take the above suspension of payment, and violated the fourth metropolitan investigation team and the fourth regional investigation team 29.

2) At around 13:42 on the same day, Defendant 1 (OV) released 300,000 won via a cash card of the Deceased on two occasions at the convenience store located in the Seo-gu ( Address 3 omitted), Daegu-gu (OV). At around 14:01 on the same day, Defendant 1 (OV) released KRW 19,50,000 on three occasions from the cash payment machine located in the Daegu-gu Office located in the same YY-dong, Daegu-gu (OV). Accordingly, the police obtained the above closed-circuit television of the said cash payment machine (hereinafter “CCTV”), and confirmed that Defendant 1 (OV) increased the number of closed-circuit television of the said cash payment machine, and that the suspect was driving and traveling a white learning that was parked near the suspect.

3) 경찰은 같은 날 18:57경 부정계좌등록시스템을 통하여 피고 1(대판:소외인)이 대구 달서구 이곡동에 있는 대구은행 ☆☆지점 내 현금지급기에서 현금인출을 시도한다는 사실을 포착하고 이러한 사실을 무전으로 전파하였다. 한편, 대구 달서구 호산동 일대를 수색하라는 지시를 받고 형사기동차량(비노출 스타렉스)을 타고 그 일대를 수색하던 ▷▷경찰서 형사과 강력1팀은 19:22경 대구 달서구 호림동 호림네거리에서 강변도로 방면으로 이동하다가 피고 1(대판:소외인)이 운전하는 승용차로 의심되는 용의차량을 발견하고, 용의차량을 서행으로 미행하였고, 용의차량이 지역난방공사 북편 편도 1차선 도로에 진입하여 길 가장자리에 정차하자 위 형사기동차량을 용의차량의 약 10미터 후방 길 건너편에 정차시켰다. 위 강력1팀의 팀장 경위 소외 2는 팀원인 경사 소외 9와 소외 10에게 용의차량에 대한 검문을 지시하였고, 소외 9와 소외 10은 위 형사기동차량에서 내려 용의차량에 대한 검문을 실시하려고 하였다. 그런데, 피고 1(대판:소외인)은 실제로 위 용의차량을 운전하고 있었는데, 자신이 정차한 후 위 형사기동차량이 바로 따라와 후방에 정차하고, 소외 9와 소외 10이 무전기 또는 수첩으로 보이는 검은색 물건을 들고 형사기동차량에서 내리는 것을 보고 순간적으로 두 사람이 형사라는 것을 직감하고 위 승용차를 급발진시켜 도주하였다.

4) 위 강력1팀은 위 승용차를 추적하는 과정에서 위 승용차의 번호를 확인하여 이를 무전으로 전파하였고, 인근에 배치되어 있던 ♤♤지방경찰청 광역수사대 조직1팀이 19:30경 도주 중인 위 승용차를 발견하고 추격을 시작하였으나 퇴근 시간대의 혼잡한 교통으로 인하여 피고 1(대판:소외인)을 검거하는 데는 실패하였다. 이후 조직1팀은 위 추격과정에서 알게 된 용의차량의 특징을 무전으로 전파하였다.

5) On the other hand, Defendant 1 (Outboard Person) called the Plaintiff’s mobile phone to the Plaintiff’s husband and wife from time to time until he becomes aware of the fact that the police started an investigation. Accordingly, the police could grasp the approximate location of Defendant 1 (overboard Person) through the cell phone location tracking, but Defendant 1 (overboard Person) called the Plaintiff’s husband and wife by telephone to the Plaintiff at around 19:26, after he became subject to the police’s drilling, the police could not track the mobile phone location as much as possible.

6) Defendant 1 (Outboard Person) thought that the number of death, such as scambling from the police, is narrow, and thus, it cannot be said that he could no longer live the victim he knows. Defendant 1 (overboard Person) established the said car at the entrance of the scambol-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do through the 88 Highway, and died the deceased, and found the deceased’s body to be loaded on the body of the deceased and went to Daegu through the 88 Highway, and abandoned the body into the scambol.

7) On the same day, Defendant 1 (In the 19:41 on the same day, Defendant 1 (in the 20:33 on the same day) went to Ski-gun beyond Daegu via Skikith, and went to Skiki-gun at around 21:34 on the same day, Defendant 1 (in the 22:33 on the 21:34 on the 21:34 on the 22:3 on the 22:33 on the 19:4 on the 19:41 on the same day on the same day

8) 경찰은 6. 24. 8:10경 대구에서 타시도로 연결되는 톨게이트에서 검문검색을 강화할 것을 지시하였고, 같은 날 10:00경 수사본부를 설치하여 일제 수색을 실시할 것을 결정하고, 같은 날 14:00경부터 용의자 및 용의차량 발견을 위한 일제 수색을 실시하여 16:25경 대구 달서구 용산동 피고 1(대판:소외인)의 주거지 인근에서 위 승용차를 발견하고, 그 주거지 일대에서 잠복하던 중 같은 날 19:50경 같은 동에 있는 ◁◁사우나 앞에서 피고 1(대판:소외인)을 검거하였다.

D. Plaintiffs’ status relationship

Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 are the parents of the Deceased, and Plaintiff 3 is the birth of the Deceased.

【Defendant 1 (Counter-board Person): Confession (Article 150(3) and (1))

Defendant Republic of Korea: Facts without dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3, 6 through 8, Eul’s 1 and 2(including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Defendant Republic of Korea is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes when police officers under his jurisdiction inflict damages on the deceased and the plaintiffs in the course of performing their duties of arrest of criminals. Accordingly, Defendant 1 (In the instant case, the deceased is liable to compensate for damages of KRW 254,804,362, consolation money of KRW 35,000,000,000 for lost daily income, KRW 15,000,000 for funeral expenses, KRW 15,000,000 for funeral expenses, KRW 3,000,000 for consolation money, KRW 15,000,000 for consolation money, and KRW 3,00,000 for consolation money, KRW 40,000 for lost damage + KRW 15,000 for funeral expenses + KRW 300,000 for the damages of KRW 3,50,000 for each of the plaintiffs (i.e., the defendants).

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

1) Defendant 1’s liability to compensate for losses incurred by Defendant 1 (ex officio)

The defendant 1 (the plaintiff 1) is a direct illegal act, and there is no doubt that there is no obligation to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages they suffered.

2) Defendant Korea’s liability for damages

Furthermore, as to whether Defendant Republic of Korea is liable for damages under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, the harmful act by public officials should be “violation of the Act and subordinate statutes.” Violation of the Act and subordinate statutes refers to not only a strict violation of the Act and subordinate statutes, but also a violation of human rights such as respect for human rights, prohibition of abuse of power, good faith and good faith, and respect for public order and good morals, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da70180, Dec. 24, 2009). The police officers have duties to prevent, suppress and investigate crimes, protect the lives, bodies and property of citizens, and maintain public peace and order as well as various authorities have been granted under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, the Criminal Procedure Act, etc. for the smooth performance of their duties. Thus, police officers performing specific duties can exercise their authority to properly respond to all circumstances and take necessary measures, such as a police officer’s exercise of authority, which is considerably unreasonable.

As to this case, the public health unit and police officers lost the opportunity to prevent additional crimes in neighboring areas where the attempted abduction occurred, as the defendant 1 (outboard person) was unable to take necessary measures such as the police's cell phone location tracking, and the result of the illegal account tracking, the defendant 1 (outboard person) was unable to take necessary measures such as the police officer's request for the arrest of the deceased from June 16, 2010. Since the defendant 1 (outboard person) was unable to take necessary measures such as the police officer's failure to take necessary measures such as the arrest of the deceased, the police officer's failure to take necessary measures such as the removal of the deceased's vehicle from the convenience store located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 13:42, and the defendant 1 (outboard person)'s cell phone tracking and the police officer's failure to take necessary measures such as the removal of the deceased's vehicle from 14:00,000,000,000 from 14:3:0,000.

C. Limitation on liability

In a case where the court offsets the fault for the victim's negligence, even if the ratio of negligence to each joint tortfeasor is different, the victim's negligence is not individually assessed against each joint tortfeasor, but comprehensively assessed all of them by negligence against all of them (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da76368, Jul. 28, 2011). Therefore, even if the degree of negligence of the defendant Republic of Korea in a position similar to the joint tortfeasor is very weak, it is not easy to find grounds for limiting the liability.

However, in light of the general public’s legal sentiment, it is reasonable to limit liability in accordance with the above principle, insofar as a failure to limit liability for part of the joint tortfeasor falls under cases where it is unreasonable to the extent that it is considerably acceptable in light of the general public’s legal sentiment. In this case, even if a public official belonging to the Republic of Korea was negligent in violating the statutes, it is completely different from cases where a public official belonging to the Republic of Korea took part in Defendant 1’s criminal act or contributed to the formation of a criminal act by facilitating such crime. Rather, even though a police officer belonging to the Republic of Korea tried to trace and search Defendant 1’s criminal act, he/she did not stop the crime even though he/she did not endeavor to prevent the crime. However, the police officer’s imposition of liability is almost the same as Defendant 1’s criminal act, which was a crime committed by the Republic of Korea, which was not committed by the general public, by taking into account that it is unreasonable to prevent the crime from being committed by the general public, and that it is not contrary to the ideology of fair distribution of Defendant 1’s tort.

D. Scope of damages

(i) Actual income;

In accordance with the discount method which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12% per month as follows based on the facts of recognition and the contents of evaluation as follows, the loss of lost income equivalent to the monetary total assessment value of the operating capacity lost by the accident of this case is 249,564,876 won calculated at the present price at the time of the accident of this case.

(A) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

(a) Gender: Women;

Date of birth: August 19, 1985

Age: 24 years old and 10 months old at the time of accident;

Name of rental: 60.37

(2) Monetary assessment of operating capacity: the urban daily wage of January 201 is KRW 72,415 per day.

(c) Cost of living: 1/3 of the deceased’s income;

(4) Maximum working age: From March 1, 2011 until the age of 60, the day following the scheduled date of graduation from a university of the deceased.

B)Calculation

From March 1, 2011 to July 31, 2045 413 months (the period less than a month shall be abandoned)

72,415 ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 2/3 】 234.9760 (Nomenclature 242.8294 - 7.8534) = 249,564,876 won (in cases of the amount less than the won, hereinafter the same shall apply)

【Defendant 1 (Counter-board Person): Confession (Article 150(3) and (1))

Defendant Republic of Korea: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap’s evidence 2 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2) Funeral expenses

The fact that the plaintiff 1 paid three million won as funeral expenses of the deceased does not conflict between the parties.

3) Consolation money

A) Reasons for taking into account: The background and result of the instant accident, the status quo between the deceased and the plaintiffs, and all other circumstances revealed in the process of the instant pleading.

B) the amount determined;

Deceased: 35 million won

Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2: each of 15 million won

Plaintiff 3: 3 million won

(iv)Inheritance;

A) Amount subject to inheritance: Total sum of KRW 284,564,876 (=249,564,876 for the deceased’s property damage + 35 million for the deceased’s property damage +

B) Inheritor: Plaintiffs 1 and 2

C) Calculation: Plaintiffs 1 and 2, respectively 142,282,438 won (=284,564,876 won x 1/2 of the inheritance)

5) Plaintiffs’ damages

A) Plaintiff 1: 160,282,438 won (i.e., share in inheritance 142,282,438 won + 15 million won + funeral expenses of KRW 3 million)

B) Plaintiff 2: 157,282,438 won (i.e., shares in inheritance 142,282,438 won + 15 million won)

C) Plaintiff 3: 3 million won

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 1 (Nonindicted Party 1): (i) as a tort, KRW 58 million against Plaintiff 1 (i.e., KRW 40 million + KRW 15 million + funeral expenses KRW 3 million); (ii) KRW 55 million against Plaintiff 2 (i.e., KRW 40 million + KRW 15 million + KRW 15 million); (iii) KRW 3 million against Plaintiff 3; and (iv) Defendant Republic of Korea is liable for damages under the State Compensation Act, as damages under the State Compensation Act; (iv) KRW 16,028,243 (i.e., KRW 160,282,438 x 100%) among the above KRW 58 million; and (v) KRW 250,000 per annum against Plaintiff 2; and (v) KRW 301,230,000,000 per annum against each of the above KRW 301,3038,000,000 per annum against Plaintiff 250.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant 1 (OOB) are justified. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea against the defendant are accepted within the above scope of recognition. The remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Young-young et al. (Presiding Judge)