Cases of accidents caused by negligence during the performance of duties of a public official;

The perpetrator, as a police officer of the police station, was in charge of a gun management duty at the guard and communication department office of the police station, and was in receipt of a request to see the location of the same knife, and instead of the knife the knife on the knife, the knife victim carried the gun on the knife's knife while carrying the knife on the knife's knife in order to return the knife on the knife on the knife's knife, and caused the injury to the above victim who was in front of the knife on the knife's knife.

Article 756 of the Civil Code, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1

Plaintiff 2 and five others

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (70 Ghana14574) in the first instance trial

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by each person.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3 an amount of 5% per annum from April 30, 1968 to 3,510,250 won with the amount of 6,328,351 won and 2,818,000 won with the annual interest rate of 5% from May 1, 1970 to the full payment rate of 3,510,250 won, and to the plaintiff 4 an amount of 50,000 won with the annual interest rate of 10,000 won and 5% per annum from April 30, 1968 to the full payment rate of 3,510 won.

Plaintiff 1 shall revoke the part against Plaintiff 1 in the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,018,00 and KRW 1,800,000 from April 30, 1968 to the day of full payment, the amount of KRW 2,218,00 per annum for the remaining KRW 2,200 from April 30, 1968 to the day of full payment.

A defendant shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Among the reasons for the judgment to be decided by a member, the explanation of property damage and the claim for consolation money is identical to that of the original judgment, so this is accepted by Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act and the reasons for the establishment of tort are as follows.

:

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence 2 (A), Gap evidence 3-1, 2 (Certificate of Reasons for Retirement), and Gap evidence 9-1,2,3 (each judgment) and the testimony of the non-party 2 (the witness) after remanding the case, the non-party 2 (the witness) was the police officer of the Daejeon Daejeon Police Station at the time of the above 10:30 on April 29, 1968, and the non-party 3 was under the duty to manage firearms at the time of the above office of the security communication department, and the non-party 3 was under the duty to care of the plaintiff on behalf of the non-party 3, who was under the duty to care of the non-party 1 to remove the fire-fighting gun on behalf of the non-party 3, and the non-party 1 was under the duty to care of the plaintiff on behalf of the non-party 2, who was under the duty to care of the plaintiff on behalf of the non-party 3.

Thus, this accident is caused by the negligence of the non-party 2, who is a public official under the jurisdiction of the defendant, and the defendant is responsible for compensating for all damages suffered by the above plaintiff. However, in calculating the amount of compensation, the above plaintiff's negligence should also be taken into account.

Therefore, the original judgment is just in its conclusion, and all appeals filed by the plaintiffs 1 and the defendant are without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

Judges Lee Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)