The case holding that in a case where Gap et al. claimed compensation against the State for damages against the State since police officers belonging to the competent police station such as "12 operation of the general situation room, treatment rules of missing persons and rules on treatment of children, etc." and "the duty of reasonable causal relation between the death of Byung's bereaved family members and mother, etc. was reported to the police around 13 hours before the death of Byung, and the police officers of the district police station did not make efforts to identify Eul's final witness and witness, and the police officers died of Byung due to the police officers' unlawful acts, such as providing opportunities to confirm Eul's core witness and witness, and the police officers died of Byung's unlawful acts, and the State clearly violated the duty of reasonable causal relation between the police officers' death and the duty of reasonable causal relation, and the duty of reasonable causal relation between the police officers' death and the duty of reasonable causal relation.

The case where Gap, his father and mother, etc., of Byung, reported the disappearance of Byung to the police at around 13 hours before the death of Byung, and reported the disappearance of Byung to the police at around 13 hours before the police officers of the district police station, but the police officers of the district police station did not make efforts to grasp the last witness and to identify the witness and to seek compensation for damages against the State, after Byung's unlawful acts committed by police officers belonging to the competent police station, such as making him an opportunity to identify the core proviso, such as the police officers of the district police station, who lost consciousness and continued to sleep; Byung committed an indecent act on the following day; Byung's father and mother, who was his bereaved family member, died; Byung reported the disappearance to the police at around 13 hours before the death of Byung; and Eul, even after the police officers of the district police station did not endeavor to identify the last witness and witness.

B. On the 23:15th day before the death of Byung, police officers who were dispatched to the police station after receiving the report of disappearance from Byung, etc. on the same day at around 23:27, the case holding that the police officers did not make efforts to identify the final witness and witness as they did not talk about the whereabouts of the police officers who did not know of the fact that they did not know of the fact that they did not have any duty to report their whereabouts on the same day, and that they did not have any duty to report their whereabouts on the same day at around 12:37 on the same day. However, even if police officers did not know of the fact that they did not have a duty to report their whereabouts at the 23:49th day after the same day, they did not know of the fact that they did not have a duty to report their whereabouts to the police officers who did not have any duty to report their whereabouts on the same day, and that they did not have a duty to report their whereabouts and the fact that they did not have any duty to report their whereabouts to the general situation room.

Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Dong, Attorneys Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 25, 2019

1. The defendant shall pay to plaintiffs 1 and 2 92,121,786 won, 5,00,000 won, and 5,000 won to plaintiffs 3, and 5% per annum from October 1, 2017 to May 23, 2019, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 19/20 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to plaintiffs 1 and 2 1,693,805,090 won, 300,000,000 won, and each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from October 1, 2017 to April 23, 2019, and 15% per annum from the following to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the plaintiffs

Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 are the parents of the deceased Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “the deceased”), who was killed by Nonparty 1 on October 1, 2017, around 12:30 on October 1, 2017, and Plaintiff 3 is the omission of the deceased.

B. The process of committing the crime by Nonparty 1

On September 6, 2017, Nonparty 1 died on behalf of the deceased, and Nonparty 1, from around September 2017, when Nonparty 1 found a person to resolve his sexual desire on behalf of the deceased, requested Nonparty 3 to select the deceased on the ground that Nonparty 3’s son’s son’s son’s son was dead and followed in his son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her.

At around 12:00 on September 30, 2017, Nonparty 3 met the Deceased, and on the same day at Nonparty 1’s house, around 12:20 on the same day, left the Deceased. Nonparty 3 saw the Deceased as having fluencing alcohol, and flucing the Defendant’s water exemption 2 of the above water exemption : (a) as if Nonparty 3 flucing the Deceased’s water prepared in advance; (b) flucing it, Nonparty 3 flucing the Deceased into drinking water; and (c) additionally, flucing the Deceased as if Nonparty 200 (CP200), flucing all of the known drugs included in the bruc stability.

The non-party 1 moved the deceased, regardless of whether he was able to do so, and the non-party 3 had his mobile phone from the side of the △△ market located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 2 omitted), instructed the non-party 3 to leave the house room where he had been living in the nearby area, and the non-party 3 started to hold the house around 15:40 on the same day.

소외 1은 같은 날 15:40경부터 19:50경까지 의식을 잃은 상태의 망인을 추행하다가 19:50경 소외 3을 데리러 나가서 같은 날 20:18경 함께 귀가하였다. 소외 1은 소외 3으로 하여금 안방에 들어가지 못하도록 하면서 혹시 망인이 잠에서 깰 것 같으면 자신에게 연락하라고 지시한 후 소외 3이 숨겨 둔 망인의 휴대전화를 의정부시 (주소 3 생략) 부근 □□교로 가지고 가 그 다리 밑 하천에 버린 다음, 같은 날 22:08경 자신의 집으로 다시 돌아왔다.

Since then, Nonparty 1 committed an indecent act against the deceased on October 1, 2017, the following day after the string of the deceased, who was locked, lost his consciousness at around 12:30, and began to talk again with the body of the deceased who continued to be locked. During that, Nonparty 1’s body, who was locked up with Nonparty 1’s hand, satisfing the deceased’s body, and satched with the deceased’s body, and satched with the deceased’s face until the deceased’s movement was extinguished, and satched with the deceased’s face until the deceased’s movement was removed, and satched with the satch covered with the satch of the deceased’s satch and the satched with the satch of the deceased’s body, and led the deceased to the death of the deceased with a satisfing satch with the deceased’s stroke.

C. The flight process of Nonparty 1

On the other hand, at around 11:53 on October 1, 2017, Nonparty 3 met another relative with the deceased, and Nonparty 1 said, after the deceased’s death, called that Nonparty 3 enter the house by posting a phone, and Nonparty 1 knew of the deceased’s death. Nonparty 1, who entered the house around 13:44 on the same day, was aware of the deceased’s death. Nonparty 1 laid off the deceased’s body with Nonparty 3 along with Nonparty 3, putting the deceased’s body on a travel room, and arranged clothes, wastes, etc.

On the same day, at around 16:42, Nonparty 1 was on the house of Nonparty 4, who was in the shape of Nonparty 4, and returned to the house on the UV vehicle that was operated by Nonparty 4, and was carrying the deceased’s body on the above vehicle, and began to abscond together with Nonparty 3, but was arrested in the studio located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 4 omitted) around October 5, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 2, 3, and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

On September 30, 2017, around 13:15, when the Deceased died, Plaintiff 2 reported the missing of the Deceased, and sent a call with Nonparty 3, who was considered to have been the last witness before Nonparty 5 in the border of △△ District, but the police officers of △△ District did not endeavor to identify the last witness and witness and provided an opportunity to confirm Nonparty 3, which is the core proviso. The police officers of △△ District Police Station in Do, Do, Seoul, Police Station, Do, and Do, Police Officers (hereinafter referred to as “Woo Investigation Team”) died of the Deceased due to various illegal acts of police officers belonging to the △△ District Police Station, including the police officers who did not respond almost all to the instructions of the Deceased regarding the missing.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages, as stated in the purport of the claim, including 1 billion won for consolation money against the deceased and the plaintiff 1 and 2, and 300 million won for consolation money of the plaintiff 30 million won.

B. The defendant's argument

The police officers of △△ District did not exercise their authority as police officers by making their best efforts to search the deceased on the basis of given information, and did not exercise their authority as police officers, even if the police officers violated their regulations, there was no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and the deceased’s death. However, the Plaintiffs did not provide accurate information on them. The Plaintiffs did not explicitly mention Nonparty 3 until the deceased’s death. The Plaintiffs 1 stated that “the deceased would have cosmetic at school.” The police officers of the △△ District Police Station of △△△△ District did not exercise their authority as police officers by making their best to search the deceased on the basis of the given information.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition

The following facts are recognized according to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 10, 12 through 15, and Eul evidence Nos. 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) The condition in which the Deceased was on duty.

At around 11:55 on September 30, 2017, the deceased asked the plaintiff 1, who was in the house at the time of the opening of the house, that "I am swelved with the clothes, and I am swelve?" and the deceased asked the plaintiff 1 to "I am swelve about the cosmetic at school, and I am swelved with the plaintiff 1."

2) The police report of the plaintiff 2

On September 28, 2017, Plaintiff 2 asked Nonparty 3’s house to see the film, and then Nonparty 3 was frequently sponsed with the ordinary deceased and did not act normally, and Plaintiff 2 did not allow Nonparty 3 to go to Nonparty 3’s house.

On September 30, 2017, Plaintiff 2 confirmed that Plaintiff 2 was unable to receive a phone call from the deceased who was working in the beauty room on September 12:37, 2017, to ask him/her whether he/she is going to his/her friendship and DVD bank.

At around 17:07 on the same day, the plaintiff 2 had a telephone call to the deceased, and the telephone was made to the her natives, including the non-party 6, but the her natives knew of the whereabouts of the deceased.

On the same day, around September 28, 2017, Plaintiff 2 asked Non-Party 3’s house whether the deceased would be viewed as a film, and Non-Party 3 did not receive a telephone, although Non-Party 2 made a telephone to Non-Party 3.

On the same day, at around 19:33, Nonparty 3 received Plaintiff 2’s telephone, and Nonparty 3 asked Plaintiff 2 who was asked for the deceased, that Nonparty 3 asked Nonparty 2 that “the deceased would have come to another her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her.” Nonparty 3 asked Nonparty 2 whether Plaintiff her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

In 21:51 on the same day, around 21:52, around 21:58, and around 22:09, Plaintiff 2 made a phone call to Nonparty 3 on four occasions, but Nonparty 3 did not receive any phone call.

Around 22:29 the same day, Nonparty 3, who received the Plaintiff 2’s phone, took the deceased at around 12:30 and around 14:00, and the deceased took the direction of knick elementary school (the direction of Nonparty 1’s house and opposition). Nonparty 2 recorded the contents of the telephone by pointing out that Nonparty 3 was not well-known.

After that, Plaintiff 2 did not grasp the deceased’s whereabouts even after the phone calls to other relatives, and on 23:15 on the same day, Plaintiff 2 reported that “the deceased did not enter the house up to the present day, and was out of the phone” (hereinafter “the instant report”).

3) Order to move out the situation room in the 112 situation room in the △△ Police Station

On September 30, 2017, at around 23:20, Nonparty 7 classified the instant report as co-dede 1 (in accordance with Article 13(1) of the 112 comprehensive situation room operation and report processing rules mentioned above, the report of this case should be called first) on September 30, 2017, at the location of the final base station of the deceased mobile phone (in the vicinity of the △△△△ History) from the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, and called the order to move back to the 11:14 patrol car in the △△△△ District Police Station in the Seoul Special Metropolitan Police Agency, which was on duty at around 23:21:30 of the same day.

4) First response by police officers, etc. in △△ District

On September 30, 2017, 201, 14 (the 2nd police officer, Nonparty 8, and Nonparty 9) arrived at the plaintiffs' house around September 23:27, 2017. Then, the 11th police officer (the 10th police officer, Nonparty 5) in △△ District, also arrived at the plaintiffs' house around 23:29 on the same day. The police officer asked Plaintiff 2 to ask Plaintiff 2 to the 12th degree of time, and the 12:37 phone calls to the 12th degree of time, and the 12:37 level of telephone calls to the 5th degree of time. However, the 12nd police officer did not speak as to the 5th group.

At around 23:45 on the same day, Non-party 10 and Non-party 5, in order to enter a profiling system for missing children, etc., the plaintiff 1 was placed in the house and only the plaintiff 2 in the patrol car 11, and moved to the △△ District. Non-party 5 began to enter the deceased's information in the profiling system for missing children, etc. based on the plaintiff 2's statement.

같은 날 23:49경 경장 소외 5가 원고 2에게 망인이 집을 나설 당시 옷차림에 대하여 물었고, 원고 2는 이를 설명하던 중 어떠한 옷차림이었는지 확신이 들지 않아 “차라리 마지막 만난 ◁◁이와 통화해 볼게요.”라고 말한 뒤 소외 3과 통화를 하면서 들은 내용을 토대로 경장 소외 5에게 망인의 옷차림에 대하여 설명을 하였으며, 경장 소외 5는 실종아동 등 프로파일링시스템 입력에만 열중하였을 뿐 소외 3의 존재에 대해서는 신경을 쓰지 않았다. 그리고 당시 ◇◇지구대에서는 별도의 폭행 사건 관련자들이 조사를 받고 있었으나, 원고 2의 말을 들을 수 없을 정도로 시끄러운 소리가 나지는 않았다.

On the same day, at around 23:54, Plaintiff 2 was unable to memory the deceased’s resident registration number and Nonparty 10 and Plaintiff 2 went to the beauty room where Plaintiff 2 was kept, and returned to △△ District. On October 1, 2017, the investigation was conducted to enter the profiling system of missing children, etc. up to October 1, 2017, and Nonparty 5 entered the place of occurrence in the profiling system, including missing children, in the form of “Ba,” which is the deceased’s residence, even though the location of the last base station of the deceased was confirmed to be a profiling system, such as the missing children, etc., and Nonparty 5 entered the place of occurrence in the form of “Ba,” which is the deceased’s residence. Nonparty 8 and Nonparty 10 did not pay special attention to the deceased’s active investigation process as above.

On October 1, 2017, at around 00:50, 2017, 112 units of the △△△ Police Station in the △△△△ District requested the 112 general situation room in the △△△ Police Station in the △△△△ District to provide support for the search of 112 units. At that time, Nonparty 11 of the △△ Police Station in the △△△△△△ Police Station in the △△△△△ District began to search the situation manager, who was on duty, was on duty with the head of the duty team without any specific instruction or transfer in relation thereto. Accordingly, the police officers in the △△ District and the 112 units of the △△ Police Station in the △△△ District in the △△ District and the head of the duty team

5) Police officers’ initial response to the police officer’s Second Team

A female audience investigation2 team: (a) internal mobilization and waiting group divided into mobilization and waiting group by time, and (b) waiting group was engaged in work on duty in lieu of mobilization group only in cases where the mobilization group is unable to perform other duties due to other duties; (c) on September 30, 2017, at the time of the watchkeeping service, Article 1 (Security Guards Nonparty 12, Police Officer Nonparty 13) was called out at the 9:15:0 p.m. and 21:3:0 p.m. from September 30, 2017, Article 2 (Security Guards Nonparty 14, Senior 15) was called out at the 15:21 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 30, 2017.

On September 30, 2017, at around 18:19, the report of the case of domestic violence (hereinafter referred to as “special case”) was received as code 1, and Nonparty 14 and Nonparty 15, who were the developments leading up to the dispatch at the time, called ○○ area and dealt with it.

On September 30, 2017, another domestic violence case was received on or around 22:29, and as a result, Nonparty 13 became aware of the fact that there was no tool, such as a deadly weapon, and the damage was confirmed to be a minor case, and thus, at the time when the female investigation team received from Nonparty 7 around 23:21:30 of the same day the call-out order due to the instant report, there was no case to be treated earlier than this.

However, at around 23:21:37 on the same day, Nonparty 13 did not take any measures after having respondeded that he was aware of the foregoing Madern, and Nonparty 12 was a person who was locked up with the Madern. As such, Nonparty 13 was unable to hear the said Madern.

At around 23:50 on the same day, Non-party 12 and Non-party 13 were transferred to the female investigative team, and the suspect began to interrogate the suspect, and the suspect was examined until October 1, 2017, which is the next day.

한편 피의자신문 중이었던 2017. 10. 1. 01:24경 다른 가정폭력 사건이 접수되었는데, 경위 소외 12, 순경 소외 13은 피의자신문을 마치고 위 사건의 가해자를 면담하기 위해 같은 날 02:11경 ▷▷지구대에 도착하여 가해자를 면담한 뒤 ◇◇지구대로 향했고, 같은 날 02:42경 ◇◇지구대에 도착하여 약 2분간 망인의 수색상황만 물어보고 아무런 조사를 하지 않은 채 같은 날 02:44경 ☆☆경찰서로 복귀하였다.

On September 30, 2017, at around 23:21:30 on September 30, 2017, Nonparty 16, the team leader of the National Assembly Investigation2 Team, was not in a position at the first floor office, and was waiting at the second floor office, and was unable to listen to the vision from the 112 situation room. On October 1, 2017, the next day from around 00:46 to 06:07, Nonparty 16 am out of the room for the team leader’s rest. Nonparty 16, at around 06:07 on the same day, was informed of the fact that the report of this case was made, and it was not formally confirmed whether the report of this case was made, and on the same day, Nonparty 7:00 on the same day, Nonparty 16 did not report to the head of the National Police Agency and the head of the Local Police Agency to the effect that the report of this case was not made. Nonparty 308 on the same day.

6) The reasons why Nonparty 13, Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 2 first met for the first time.

On October 1, 2017, Plaintiff 2: (a) called the Green Investigation Team of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Station, where the watchkeeping was on duty, to ask for the progress of the case; (b) called “Is to come to, and go, if Isia, if Isia does not enter, Isia”; and (c) called “Isia, if Isia does not enter, Isia.”

여청수사3팀은 위 전화를 받은 후 순경 소외 13에게 상황을 전화로 설명하였고, 순경 소외 13은 같은 날 23:07경 원고 2에게 전화하여 마지막으로 망인을 언제 보았는지 물어보았으며, 원고 2가 “망인이 2017. 9. 30. 12:37경 ◁◁이를 만나서 △△시장 부근 ▽▽▽▽에서 헤어졌고, ◎◎초등학교 방면으로 갔다.”라고 대답하자, 다음 날 오전 10:00경 △△시장에서 만나기로 약속하였다.

7) On October 2, 2017, the investigation status

However, on the grounds that Nonparty 13 was late, Nonparty 13, Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 2 were only in the vicinity of the △△△△ City on October 2, 2017, on the grounds that Nonparty 13 was a police officer, and Nonparty 13 was only in the vicinity of the △△△△ City on October 2, 2017, and the CCTV was confirmed, but the deceased could not be identified.

그러던 중 원고 2가 녹음한 소외 3과의 통화내용을 반복해서 들려주자, 순경 소외 13은 ‘그럼 ◁◁이가 전화를 받지 않으니 ◁◁이와 친한 친구를 알아보자’고 말하였고, 원고 2는 2017. 10. 2. 13:56경 소외 3의 집을 아는 친구인 소외 6과 연락하여 소외 6을 만난 뒤 같은 날 14:15경 순경 소외 13, 소외 6과 함께 소외 1(소외 3)의 집으로 이동하였다.

They opened Nonparty 1’s house but did not have any question, and asked Nonparty 1’s neighboring residents where they were in the house, and asked them where they were in the house of Nonparty 1 to the effect that they were “her mother, but this house is a famous house.”

Around 14:20 on the same day, Nonparty 12 and Nonparty 12 were frightened, and Nonparty 12 and Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 13 were found to have confirmed the roadside trees mainly attended by the Deceased, and confirmed the CCTV around the deceased. Of that, the Plaintiff 1 was trying to present the records of the deceased’s telephone conversations with Nonparty 3 and to show them to the police officers. However, Nonparty 12 rejected this.

Then, while confirming the CCTV from the location of the deceased's house to the area of ○ Middle School, the plaintiff 1 started to verify CCTV upon arrival at the school of ○○ Middle School, and around 17:34 on the same day, the CCTV confirmed that "the deceased and the non-party 3 move from the ○ Middle School to the house of 12:14 on September 30, 2017" and confirmed the CCTV in the direction of Non-party 1's house. After arrival at the vicinity of the non-party 1's house, the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 3 confirmed the CCTV in the direction of Non-party 1's house.

On October 2, 2017, between the police officers and the police officers, Plaintiff 2 confirmed that CCTV was installed in the neighboring church and asked to look at CCTV while explaining the situation of the church. On October 2, 2017, Plaintiff 2 asked to look at the CCTV. On October 2, 2017, it was confirmed that the lower part of the CCTV presumed to be the deceased and Nonparty 3 walked in the direction of the office of Nonparty 1.

On the same day, around 18:30 on the same day, Nonparty 12 confirmed that Nonparty 12 turned on the house of Nonparty 1 and opened the house of Nonparty 1 on the fifth floor with Plaintiff 1, but there was no number of persons. Plaintiff 1 requested police officers to search the inside of Nonparty 1’s house, but it was impossible to answer the police officers on the ground that it is not clear that the deceased went to the house of Nonparty 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff 1 asked Nonparty 1 to confirm whether the inside of the house of Nonparty 1 on the bridge that he had a friendship, and the police officers did not oppose this request.

On the same day, at around 19:30 on the same day, the plaintiff 1 confirmed part of the inside of the non-party 1's office on the bridge road.

At around 20:20 on the same day, Nonparty 16 arrived at the house of Nonparty 1, and around 20:23 on the same day, Nonparty 4, who is a punishment of Nonparty 1 (such as providing vehicles to Nonparty 1 as seen earlier, attempted Nonparty 1’s escape), and Nonparty 1 strongly resisted Nonparty 1’s house search, Nonparty 16 was 40 minutes between the mitigated Nonparty 16 and Nonparty 4.

On the same day from 20:55 to 21:10 on the same day, Nonparty 16 and Nonparty 4, who were reduced, entered Nonparty 1’s house and searched Nonparty 1’s house on a bridge-lane, but did not discover special circumstances. Nonparty 16 showed internal pictures taken by Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2, and explained the situation and finished the search.

At around 21:50 on the same day, the non-party 16 called the non-party 17 to the vice-party 17 to explain the situation, making a proposal to the same effect as the criminal case will be judged on the following day, and the non-party 17 of the correction responded to this defect.

8) The subsequent investigation situation

On October 3, 2017, at around 11:05, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 were aware of the fact that they were accommodated in the Magwon-gun’s Magwon-gun, and on the same day, at around 18:00, it was clearly confirmed that, as a result of the analysis of the data on the back-up business of the CCTV images of Nonparty 1’s house, the deceased had no fact after entering the house of Nonparty 1

On October 12:02, 2017, Nonparty 17 reported the direction to Nonparty 18 by telephone to the chief of the police station in Do, Do, in the direction of Nonparty 18. On the same day, around 15:50, Nonparty 17, Nonparty 16, the chief of the police station in Do, in the presence of the head of the police station in Do, in the presence of Nonparty 17, Nonindicted 16, the head of the criminal department, and the head of the strong team,

On October 5, 2017, at around 10:24, Nonparty 1 was arrested in the studio located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 4 omitted).

9) Contents of the relevant provisions

Of the 112 Overall Situation Regulations, which were enforced at the time of the report of this case, the matters related to this case among the rules on processing reports and processing reports, and the rules on processing missing children, etc. shall be as follows:

(1) The purpose of this Rule is to promptly protect the lives and property of the people from crimes, etc. by prescribing the basic matters concerning the operation of the 12 comprehensive situation room and the handling of reports by the chief of a police station. (2) The definitions of the terms used in these Rules shall be as follows; 7. The term "defensive elements" means 12 patrols, criminal patrols, traffic patrols, patrols, patrols, and workers at neighboring police stations, etc.; 112 personnel shall conduct tasks by classifying the initial report as soon as possible; 112 persons who have received necessary reports; 112 response codes shall be classified as follows, depending on the urgency and necessity of mobilization of the reports; 1.code reporting for the following reasons:

B. Determination

1) First, on the basis of the facts found in the above paragraph (a) above, we examine whether the police officers in charge related to the instant report violated the laws and regulations, which are the requirements for State liability of compensation.

A) The duty of police officers is to protect the lives, bodies, and property of the people as well as public peace and order maintenance, along with the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes. Since various authorities are granted under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, the Criminal Procedure Act, etc. to ensure the smooth performance of duties, police officers who perform specific duties may exercise various authority granted to them in response to all circumstances and take necessary measures. Such authority is generally delegated to police officers’ reasonable discretion based on their professional judgment. However, in cases where it is deemed significantly unreasonable in light of the purport and purpose of granting authority to police officers, it is deemed that police officers’ failure to exercise their authority and take necessary measures based on specific circumstances violates official duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da228083, Nov. 9, 2017, etc.).

B) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, ○○○ District Police Officer, who was called out after receiving the instant report, did not make efforts to specifically identify witness and witness as he/she did not listen to the phrase “on September 30, 2017, telephone call No. 12:37, 2017, 12:00, 2000, and Nonparty 2, who did not know of the fact that Nonparty 1 was missing and did not know of the fact that Nonparty 2 was missing and did not know of the fact that he/she did not come out of the office of Nonparty 1, 2: 3: The police officer of ○○ District Police Officer, who did not come out of the office of Nonparty 1, 200, and Nonparty 2, who did not come out of the office of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3, who did not know of the fact that he/she did not come out of the office of Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 2, who did not come out of the office of Nonparty 1, 2017.

2) Next, we examine whether the above unlawful act by police officers led to the death of the deceased.

A) If the content of a public official’s duty imposed on him/her is not merely for the public interest or for the purpose of regulating the internal order of an administrative agency, but entirely or incidentally for the protection of the safety and interest of an individual from society members, the State shall be liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the victim due to the public official’s breach of such duty to the extent that proximate causal relation is acknowledged. In determining the existence of proximate causal relation, the State shall comprehensively take into account not only the probability of the occurrence of the general result, but also the purpose of statutes and other rules of conduct imposing on his/her duty, the form of the harmful act, degree of damage, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da43466, Feb. 12, 1993; 2014Da27843, Jul

B) In light of the foregoing legal principles, the facts as stated in paragraphs (1) and (1), the fact of recognizing the above Paragraph (a) above, the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the above paragraph (a) above, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the operation of the 112 general situation room and the operation of the 112 general situation room, the purpose of the rules on processing reports, the business rules on missing children, etc., the manner of the police officers’ unlawful act as seen earlier, the degree of the damage inflicted on the deceased and the Plaintiffs, etc., there is

① On September 30, 2017, the police officers of △△ District confirmed the existence of Nonparty 3, the core proviso to the deceased’s final records of action, and requested Nonparty 3 to respond to the investigation, at the latest, on September 30, 2017, when Plaintiff 2 had conversationsd with Nonparty 3 by Nonparty 3.

② Although Nonparty 3 was an ordinary act to make efforts to help see himself/herself/herself/herself/herself and/or the last missing person, Nonparty 3 did not receive Plaintiff 2’s telephone over four times even though he/she heard that Plaintiff 2 was missing, and Nonparty 3 asked Nonparty 2 to answer how much other person’s mobile phone distribution interest remains, and it seems that Nonparty 3 had an ambiguous part on September 30, 2017, including Nonparty 3’s reply that Plaintiff 2 had a 40% of the deceased’s mobile phone distribution interest, and that Plaintiff 2 had a vague doubt against Nonparty 3 at the time.

③ Therefore, if police officers conducted the investigation of Nonparty 3, they could easily identify the location of the deceased.

④ If Nonparty 3 did not comply with the police’s demand for investigation and did not take the phone, the police could have determined to find out Nonparty 1’s house with a greater doubt as to Nonparty 3. In addition, in light of the process that Plaintiff 2 contacted Nonparty 13 and Nonparty 6 with Nonparty 1’s father on October 2, 2017 and found Nonparty 1’s house within 2 hours after Nonparty 2 met, police officers could find it at the latest around October 1, 2017.

⑤ In October 2, 2017, Plaintiff 1 told that “I would like to have a cosmetic........” However, if police officers conducted a survey on Plaintiff 1, who was in the house at the time when the Deceased’s house was opened for the purpose of specifying witnesses and witnesses, he could lead Plaintiff 1’s above statement earlier. In addition, in light of the process that Plaintiff 1 made such statement on October 2, 2017 and found Plaintiff 1 again at the house of Nonparty 1 after approximately two to three hours, if the police officers conducted a survey on Plaintiff 1, it would have been able to find the fact at the house of Nonparty 1, at the latest at around October 1, 2017 when Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 1’s house were temporarily confirmed.

④ On October 2, 2017, the investigation was conducted by a female investigation team 2 teams (the senior police officer, Nonparty 12, and Nonparty 13, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, and Nonparty 16, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, and the senior police officer, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, and the senior police officer, the senior police officer, and the senior police officer, the senior police officer, the senior police officer, from September 30, 2017, investigated the deceased's criminal records

7) Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 appear to have been prepared for the deceased to take care of and locked the deceased’s cell phone, and concealed the deceased’s cell phone outside of the house to make a disguised act as if the deceased left by himself. However, regarding the subsequent act, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 appear to have not prepared for how to respond to the subsequent act, especially when the police visited the deceased, and Nonparty 1 was locked until late October 1, 2017 without any specific preparation for the investigation.

④ In the absence of a police officer’s illegal act, Nonparty 1 knew of the fact that he was tracking the police around October 1, 2017, before Nonparty 1 murdered the deceased at the latest. In addition, according to the criminal facts against Nonparty 1, according to the criminal judgment against Nonparty 1, Nonparty 1 had been aware of the fact that Nonparty 1 had the above tendency, considering the fact that, around October 12, 2017, Nonparty 1 had committed an indecent act by gathering the body of the deceased and taking the body of the deceased, Nonparty 1 would have killed the deceased in mind and contingently with Nonparty 1’s body being satisfeed, and Non-Party 1’s body was satisfeed with Nonparty 1’s body. In view of the fact that Nonparty 1 was prepared to kill a part of the crime and was satisfying his body in criminal cases, Nonparty 1 had already been aware of the fact that Nonparty 1 had the above tendency.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members, due to the death of the deceased caused by the police officers’ negligence in performing their duties as above.

4) However, in light of the fact that Nonparty 18’s failure to properly manage and supervise the above illegal acts by the police officers at around 18 around October 4, 2017, it is difficult to view that the act itself constitutes an unlawful act because it itself was considerably unreasonable in light of the fact that Nonparty 18 knew of the deceased’s disappearance, and that: (a) Nonparty 11, who was the 112 situation management officer at around 00:45 on September 30, 2017, took turns to work without dividing the search place and giving specific instructions regarding the report in this case; (b) Nonparty 5’s cell phone location on the deceased’s cell phone in △△ District, without stating it on the missing profiling system, was concealed as another place after the deceased’s death; and (c) Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 were unable to find that there was a proximate causal relation between Nonparty 10 and the deceased’s head of the police station at around 207. In light of the fact that it was difficult to recognize that there was a reasonable causal relation between Nonparty 16 and the deceased’s.

C. Limitation on liability

In this case, even if there was a negligence in violation of the legal duty imposed on the police officers belonging to the defendant, it is different from the case where the defendant participated in the crime of the non-party 1, or contributed to the formation of the crime by facilitating the crime. Although the crime of the non-party 1 and the omission by the police officers belonging to the defendant who did not restrain it, it is reasonable to impose equal responsibilities on the same person with the non-party 1 who committed the crime that directly generates the damage, merely because the defendant was responsible for preventing the death of the deceased from being committed in violation of the legal duty, taking into account the policy purpose of protecting the victim, it is contrary to the principle of fair and reasonable distribution of the damage, and is contrary to the principle of fair and reasonable distribution of the damage. The crime of the non-party 1, which directly caused the non-party 1's passive mistake that the police officers belonging to the defendant did not stop the crime of the non-party 1, and that it is reasonable to take into account the structure of the defendant's general responsibility to protect the defendant's illegal act as a core of the defendant.

4. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Actual income;

The loss of lost income for operating capacity lost by the deceased as a result of the instant crime is KRW 441,50,040, calculated at the present price at the time of the instant crime, pursuant to the Act that deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month based on the facts and assessment as follows, based on the following facts:

1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

A) Gender: Women;

B) Date of birth: July 15, 2003

(c) Age: 14 years old and 2 months old at the time of death;

(d) Name of lease: 71.7 years;

E) Maximum working age: From July 15, 2022 to July 14, 2068, the deceased’s age as an adult (19 years old): 552 months from July 14, 2068.

F) Income: 125,427 won, monthly operating number 22 days, which is the statistical wage under the statistics nearest at the time of the closure of the argument in this case at the time of becoming an adult.

(g) Cost of living: 1/3 mutual aid;

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 5, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

(ii)Calculation;

41,503,040 won = 125,427 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 2/3 ¡¿ heading coefficient [=251.816 (= 3025/8625- 51.0465) or heading coefficient exceeds 240];

B. The deceased’s passive damages in consideration of limitation of liability

132,450,912 won (=441,503,040 won x 30%)

(c) Deductions for bereaved family relief funds;

Where a victim of a crime subject to relief dies, it is reasonable to view that the State or a local government should pay only the balance calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the bereaved family relief fund received by the bereaved family members from the passive amount of damages suffered by the bereaved family members who died to the bereaved family members (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da228083, Nov. 9, 2017, etc.).

According to the purport of the statement of No. 5 and the entire argument, it is acknowledged that Plaintiff 1, the father of the deceased, received KRW 28,207,340 as the bereaved family relief fund paid by the State on November 17, 2017 under the Crime Victim Protection Act. The said money should be deducted from the passive amount of damages of the deceased.

Therefore, if the deceased deducts the amount of KRW 28,207,340 of the bereaved family relief fund from the passive damages of KRW 132,450,912, the deceased’s passive damages would remain 104,243,572.

(d) Condolence money;

In full view of the circumstances and results of police officers’ act of violation of their duties, the deceased and the plaintiffs’ status relationship, and all other circumstances revealed in the course of the argument in this case, consolation money of the deceased shall be KRW 40,000,000, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2’s consolation money of KRW 20,000,000, respectively, and KRW 5,000,000.

(e) Calculation of shares in inheritance;

1) Amount subject to inheritance: Total of 144,243,572 won (=104,243,572 won for the deceased’s property damage + 40,000,000 won for consolation money of the deceased)

2) Inheritor: Plaintiffs 1 and 2 (Each 1/2 equity)

3) Calculation: Plaintiffs 1 and 2, respectively 72,121,786 won (=144,243,572 won x 1/2 of the inheritance)

F. The plaintiffs' damages

1) Plaintiffs 1 and 2: Each of 92,121,786 won (i.e., inheritance amount of KRW 72,121,786 + 20,000,000)

2) Plaintiff 3: 5,000,000 won (defensive materials)

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 the amount of KRW 92,121,786, KRW 5,000,00 for each of the said money, and each of the said money to Plaintiff 3, the amount of KRW 5,000 for each of the said money from October 1, 2017, which is the date of death of the Deceased, to May 23, 2019, which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Oi-jun (Presiding Judge)