The case holding that the State is liable for damages under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act to the State on the ground that there exists a proximate causal relationship between the act of neglecting duties and the act of suicide committed by the officers in active duty service, who committed suicide during the vacation period due to a failure to adapt to the military life, such as abusive language, quality, etc. of the appointed soldiers, and the act of neglecting duties by the officers in charge

The case holding that the State is liable for damages under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act to the State on the ground that there exists a proximate causal relation between the neglect of duties by the competent commanding officers who should have prevented the occurrence of suicide, escape from military life, etc. by attempting to adapt themselves to military life, and the negligence committed by the competent commanding officers who committed suicide during the vacation period due to their failure to adapt to military life, and the superior committed suicide during the vacation period, and by exercising disciplinary and discipline rights to a subordinate officer, through cruel acts such as abusive language, quality, etc., and by providing education and life guidance for soldiers who do not adapt themselves to military life (Provided, That 80% of negligence set-off).

Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Mac, Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

July 6, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 2 29,48,704 won, each of the 2,500,000 won and each of the above 20% interest per annum from June 12, 2005 to July 20, 2006, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff 1 and 2's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 40% of the costs incurred between the plaintiffs 1, 2 and the defendant shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, the remainder by the defendant, and the part incurred between the plaintiffs 3, 4 and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 51,361,420 won to the plaintiff 1 and 2, and 2,50,000 won to the plaintiff 3, and 4 with 5% interest per annum from June 12, 2005 to the pronouncement date of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of pleadings as follows: Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 4, 6, 1, 9-1, 2, 10 through 12, Eul evidence 1 through 4, 5, 6-2, 7, 8-1, 2, 3, 9-1 through 4, 10-1, 10-1, 11, and 11, and Eul evidence 8-1, 2, 3, 9-1 through 4, 10-1, 10, and 11.

A. On October 5, 2004, the deceased non-party 1 was in the second-year course of study at the Joseon University and entered the Gun on December 20, 204, and was assigned to the 72 Assistant Soldiers’ Team at the Army on December 20, 204, and was on duty as a driver. The plaintiff 1 was the deceased non-party 1’s father, the deceased non-party 1’s mother, the plaintiff 2’s mother, the deceased non-party 1’s mother, and the plaintiff 4 was the deceased non-party 1’s mother.

B. On April 1, 2005, the deceased non-party 1 was excluded from the time of promotion of Japanese soldiers on April 1, 2005, by making efforts to clarify the characteristics of the after-school soldier entering the military life, and actively adapt to the military life, since he/she was unable to adapt well to the military life from the time of transfer into the inner and passive nature.

C. However, during the period from April 4, 2005 to the 13th day of the same month, the deceased non-party 1 complained of the difficulties in military life while she was subject to disciplinary action with non-party 2 for seven days from April 2, 2005 to August of the same month on the ground that he was on the ground that he was on the ground of his neglect of boundary duty during the service of the ammunition, and thus, the regular leave was postponed. The first regular leave was from April 11, 2005 to April 15, 2005, and the first regular leave was from April 15, 2005 to 15 of the same month." The deceased non-party 1 complained of the difficulties in military life, and she saw both descendants from the home toilet on the 15th day of the same month, which is the date of returning.

D. After the deceased non-party 1 returned to the military forces, the plaintiff 1 asked the non-party 3 captain, who was a watchkeeping officer, to look at the phone, to find out the same trace as the one that the deceased non-party 1 got out of the house, and asked him to confirm whether he was aware, and asked the reason why the deceased non-party 4, who was a captain of the deceased non-party 1, did not harm the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1. The plaintiff 1 asked the deceased non-party 1, who was a captain of the deceased non-party 1, to look at the reason that the deceased non-party 1 did not harm the deceased non-party 1. The deceased non-party 1 again selected the deceased non-party 1 as a protective police officer, and the deceased non-party 5, who was the commander of the branch of the family, was aware of the deceased non-party 1, but did not take any special measures other than regular interview with the deceased non-party 1, but did not inform the deceased non-party 1.

E. The deceased Non-Party 1, even after being she was she at all times at all times, was she cannot adapt to the military life, such as that he was she was shed to be shel and she was shel, and he was she was her unable to adapt well to the military life, and was frequently abused and she was shed from the appointed soldiers as follows:

(1) At around 16:00 on April 2005, Non-party 6, the deceased non-party 6, on the ground that he lent his friendship to Non-party 7 of the sick and wounded, without permission, was bound by the deceased non-party 1 to “Iskn't d't d't d't d't d'.

(2) At around 20:45 on May 26, 2005, Non-party 8 of the sick and wounded were cleaned again with the deceased Non-party 1’s care for the reason that he could not properly clean the toilets and shower, and he heard the horses of Non-Party 1 of the deceased Non-Party 1, “I want to make the military life convenient? I want to do it? I want to do it? I want to do it? I want to do it with any military life? I want to do it? I want to do it? I want to do it? I want to do it?? I want to do it? I want to do it? I want to do it? I want to do it? I want to do it? I want to do it?”

F. At the time of the second vacation from June 3, 2005 to the 7th of the same month, the deceased non-party 1 was unable to return to the military unit. After all, on the 7th of the same month, the deceased non-party 1 was found to have been dead at the middle of the Han River of 08:48 on June 11, 2005 without returning to the military unit, and was found to have been dead at the 1 and 2nd of the deceased non-party 1's body of the deceased non-party 1, and the private person was presumed to have been benefiting from the deceased non-party 1's body, and the private person was presumed to have been benefiting.

G. After the deceased non-party 1's death, the deceased non-party 5, the deceased non-party 1's third-party 1's third-party 1 et al. did not prepare a observation log and interview with the division ledger as a passive person and did not properly conduct an interview. Although the deceased non-party 1's act was committed against the deceased non-party 1's member, the deceased non-party 6 and the deceased non-party 8 were not reported to the relevant division ledger. Thus, the deceased non-party 6 and the deceased non-party 8 were subject to a disciplinary measure for three days restriction on outing and staying abroad on the ground that he did not report it to the relevant division

2. Determination:

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) In light of the aforementioned facts, it is reasonable to view that Nonparty 1’s act of suicide was committed on June 7, 2005 without returning to the military unit, which is the expiration date of the leave period, and thus, Nonparty 1’s act of not returning to the military unit, and thus, it is difficult to view that Nonparty 1’s act of taking measures to prevent suicide was committed during the period of his leave, by taking into account the fact that the deceased Nonparty 1’s body was found at the vicinity of the KGG and the deceased Nonparty 1’s body and that there was no special fear of suicide or other suicide. However, the deceased Nonparty 1’s act of failing to properly adapt to the military life that is required to be strict, and thus, it was classified as a protective soldier due to the lack of duty, and that Nonparty 1’s act of failing to properly adapt to the military life by taking necessary measures, such as taking care of the military commander’s mental and physical harm, and thus, Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 8’s act of taking measures against his superior to the military life.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the deceased non-party 1 and his bereaved family members due to the suicide of the deceased non-party 1 pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act.

(2) Limitation of liability

Meanwhile, according to the above facts, it is difficult to view that the above appointed Nonparty 1’s desire and verbal abuse against the deceased Nonparty 1 were done in the course of giving lessons to and educating the deceased Nonparty 1, and the degree of such behavior was difficult to check based on ordinary wards. As the deceased Nonparty 1 also did not make active efforts to overcome mental suffering, such as reporting to the commander with regard to the above harsh acts, and the deceased Nonparty 1 selected an abnormal and extreme behavior that ends suicide. Such negligence of the deceased Nonparty 1 did not reach the degree of exemption from the Defendant, but did not amount to the degree of exemption from the Defendant, and therefore, it is reasonable to consider the Defendant’s liability in determining the Defendant’s liability, and as such, it is reasonable to view that the percentage exceeds 80% in total in light of all the above circumstances, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 20%.

(b) Scope of damages;

In addition to the following separate statements, the amount of money less than the won and the period less than the last month in calculating the amount of damages shall be set aside respectively.

(1) Actual income

(A) Occupation and maximum working age: The deceased non-party 1 entered the Army on October 5, 2004. From October 5, 2006 to April 28, 204, when the deceased non-party 1 completed his military service for twenty-four months, he could have been engaged in daily work as an ordinary father from October 5, 2006 to April 28, 204 when he was discharged from the military service.

(b) Cost of living: One third of revenues;

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant fact to party members, entry of Gap evidence 13, rule of experience, purport of whole pleadings]

(2) Limitation of liability

Defendant’s liability ratio: 20%

(3) Consolation money

(A) Reasons for consideration: The age, family relation, degree of education, circumstance and result of the accident of the deceased non-party 1, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

(b) the amount determined;

① The deceased Nonparty 1: 10,000,000 won

② Plaintiff 1 and 2: 5,000,000 won, respectively.

③ Plaintiffs 3 and 4: 2,500,000 won, respectively.

(4) Inheritance relations

Due to the death of the deceased non-party 1, the damage claim against the Defendant by the deceased non-party 1 was inherited by the plaintiff 1 and 2, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to plaintiffs 1 and 2 2 29,48,704 won each of them, 3, and 4 2,500,000 won and each of the above money after the deceased non-party 1's death, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 12, 2005 to July 20, 2006, which is the date of the ruling of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. The plaintiff 1 and 2's claim of this case are justified within the above scope of the above recognition, and they are dismissed for the remainder of the claim of this case by plaintiffs 3 and 4. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

[Separate] Damage List: omitted

Judges Kim Jae-bok (Presiding Judge)