Violence, death or injury by police officers and negligence by victims;

If the victim, who was a stolen suspect, fleded in a police box and was under investigation, and died from the police officer, the victim is at fault causing the assault by the police officer, and thus, should be taken into consideration in determining the amount of compensation by the State.

Articles 763, 396, and 145 of the Civil Act

On November 22, 1966, 66Da1811 decided Nov. 22, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 2323Da143 decided Nov. 23, 196; Supreme Court Decision 229 decided Nov. 29, 196; Decision 763(58)5

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Countries

Seoul District Court of First Instance (66A1822)

(1) The original judgment is modified as follows.

(2) The defendant shall pay to plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5 the amount of 67,233 won per annum to plaintiffs 1, 616 won per 38,616 won and the amount of 48,616 won per annum from August 19, 1966 to the full payment.

(3) The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

(4) The costs of lawsuit shall be four minutes through the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

(5) A provisional execution may be carried out only under the above paragraph (2).

The Plaintiff (Appellants)’s legal representative sought from Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5 an amount of KRW 130,158 won, respectively, to Plaintiffs 1, 6, and 7, respectively, and an annual amount of KRW 80,079, respectively, and from August 19, 1966 to the full payment system, 5 percent per annum. The Defendant’s legal representative sought a declaration of provisional execution and the judgment that “the litigation cost shall be borne by the Defendant.”

The defendant (Appellant) performer filed a judgment that "the part of the original judgment against the defendant is revoked. The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances."

(1) Defendant’s tort liability

In full view of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 2 (written evidence of autopsy), 5 through 8 (written evidence of written evidence), 9 (written evidence of indictment), 10 (written evidence of indictment), 10 (written evidence of judgment), and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 (written evidence of death), and Non-party Nos. 2 belonging to the original police station on August 9, 1966, Non-party Nos. 1 and 3 belonging to the original police station on the ground that the deceased non-party Nos. 3, who had been under investigation of larceny, escaped beyond the fence of the police box of the original police station at around 04:40 on August 9, 1966 on the ground that the deceased non-party No. 3, who had been under investigation of theft, escaped beyond the fence of the police box of the same police station, he/she may not recognize the fact that he/she had a brutism due to damage to his/her mouth and her clothes, and that he/she could spread the upper part of his/her body.

Thus, the defendant is responsible for compensating for the damages caused by the non-party 2's illegal act in accordance with the State Compensation Act.

(2) Negligence of Nonparty 3

As acknowledged above, Non-party 3, while being involved in the police box and being investigated as a larceny suspect, led to the assault of Non-party 2 policeman. Thus, the above negligence of Non-party 3 should be considered in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, since the above negligence of Non-party 3 constituted the cause of the accident.

(3) Loss

Furthermore, we examine the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident.

(a) Loss of import

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (Simplified Life Table) and testimony of non-party 4 at the original instance court, non-party 3, as an ordinary male of 36 years of age (1930 August 10) at the time of the accident, whose average remaining life is 27.78 years of age at the time of the accident, can be recognized as having been actually engaged in daily work in the above accident. If the above accident did not exist, he could have been engaged in daily work within the extent of his remaining life, and if he had been 19 years of age with general labor capacity certified, he could have continuously engaged in daily work and obtain wages equivalent to 30 years of age 60,000,000 won for 60,000 won and 40,000 won for 60,000 won and 40,000 won and 60,000 won and 30,000 won and 30,000 won of daily wage at the time of the accident.

Therefore, at the time of the accident, Nonparty 3 had the right to claim damages against the Defendant in the above amount of KRW 314,784, and Plaintiff 1, 6 (each recognition made by the evidence No. 1 of the above No. 2, 3, 4, and 5) who was the plaintiff 7's wife, the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5's wife's wife, inherited it in proportion to their shares of inheritance. Accordingly, the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5 against the defendant has the right to claim damages in the amount of KRW 57,23,00 won, KRW 28,616, respectively.

(B) The plaintiffs' consolation money

The plaintiffs, as the wife of the non-party 3, suffered a large amount of mental pain due to the death of the Dong-man due to the accident, and as compensation for consolation money, the circumstances leading to the above accident, the degree of negligence of the non-party 3, and the age, environment, etc. of the plaintiffs, and the remaining amount of 20,000 won against the plaintiff 7 are recognized to be reasonable for each of the plaintiffs.

(4) Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5 67,233 won each to the plaintiff 1, 616 won 38,616 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 19, 1966 to the full payment system after the occurrence of the tort in which the plaintiffs claim against the plaintiff 1,616 won and the plaintiffs 68,616 won each. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim against the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall be justified within the above limit and the remainder shall be dismissed. The judgment that accepted the above limit beyond the above limit shall be modified to the extent that it is inconsistent with the above limit, and Article 96, Article 93, and Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the bearing of the costs of the lawsuit and Article 199 of the provisional execution shall be decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-su (Presiding Judge)