Plaintiff 1 and 6 others (Law Firm Down, Attorneys Don-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

July 17, 2008

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gahap86998 Decided October 31, 2007

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. All of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocations are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 75,842,245 won, plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 3,000,000 won, respectively, and 5,00,000 won to the plaintiff 6, and 7 5,000 won with 5% per annum from August 4, 2005 to the date of the first instance judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The reason why the court states in this part is that it does not state "report" on Chapter 6, 9, from among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, other than the fact that "report" is the same as the corresponding part, and therefore, it cites it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Whether liability for damages is established;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

A prison officer under the Defendant’s jurisdiction, despite the possibility of suicide of the Deceased, caused the Deceased to commit suicide for more than one hour, and neglected to manage the CCTV surveillance workers in his human resources management, thereby facilitating the Deceased’s suicide. ② The Deceased was unable to take appropriate measures after his first discovery, which led to the Deceased’s death.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, the defendant is obligated to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above illegal acts committed by the above prison officers who are public officials belonging to the defendant.

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to the assertion

A confined person confined in a confinement facility of a prison, etc. may not go from the facility by his/her own will and is deprived of his/her freedom of conduct. As such, the manager of the facility is obligated to ensure the safety of the inmate's life and body. However, the details and degree of the duty to ensure the safety of the inmate's body and mental condition, physical and human conditions of the facility, time and location of the facility, etc. shall be determined in detail according to the case without any intention (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da25136, Feb. 25, 200).

However, according to the above facts, the deceased adapts to a certain degree of life and left the factory after being transferred to the ○○ prison, and the deceased's treatment at around 17:25 on July 20, 2005 due to aggravation of symptoms with a mental disorder on or around 16:40 on July 20, 2005, the deceased received treatment from a medical officer at around 17:25 on the same day, and thorough inspections on the following day were moved to five rooms. From around that time to August 2, 2005, face-to-face guidance, the deceased's use and cancellation of guidance against the deceased, the deceased's preparation and submission of a reflective door around 14:34 on August 2, 2005, and the ○○ prison was determined to have reduced seriously stable stability and risk of the deceased's use at around 17:00.

However, the above recognition of suicide was committed by Nonparty 2, who caused suicide to his/her family members due to the reduction of his/her punishment for the murder of the deceased. Although Nonparty 2 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 15 years, he/she committed suicide by himself/herself, and Nonparty 2 was at the time of his/her dispute between the two prisoners, 20:45 to 20:5 of the time when the deceased was first discovered, and 7:0 of the time when the deceased was found to have been on the 6th day after his/her death, it was difficult for the police officers to take measures to promptly remove the deceased from the 7th day after his/her death and to take measures to ensure the safety of the deceased, and there was no need to take measures to remove the deceased from the 17th day after his/her death, and there was no need to take measures to remove the deceased from the 17th day after his/her death room. The deceased’s 7th day after his/her death and his/her average 7th day after his/her death.

(2) Judgment on the argument

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the ○ prison neglected to take emergency measures against the Deceased, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit (as seen earlier, Nonparty 2 and the Eastern prison officers first discovered the Deceased, etc., taken appropriate emergency measures by doing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and promptly transferred the Deceased to the hospital).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is in part of the conclusion, so the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above cancellation shall be dismissed, and it

Judges Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)