(a) The meaning of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act "to be responsible for performing the duties"

(b) The case recognizing the execution of duties under the State Compensation Act in the case where a superior has committed violence against a subordinate who is a transferred soldier after giving a warning to a cancer engineer during education;

A. For the purpose of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, the term “person who is subject to performance of duties” includes a person who is directly a public official’s performance of duties or acts closely related thereto, and in determining this, if the person appears to be a public official’s performance of duties by objectively observing the appearance of the act itself, it shall be deemed that the person is “the person is subject to performance of duties” even if the person does not actually perform his duties, or if the person did not have subjective intent to perform duties

(b) The case holding that, in case where a superior of the protection assistant for a person who was transferred to the same sub-committee is unable to receive education on cancer articles on the ground that the subordinate's condition was poor while conducting education on cancer articles for a person who was newly transferred to the same sub-committee, the education and discipline of the superior's behavior is deemed to be an act of being performed by a public official under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, since the education and discipline of the superior is at least deemed to be an act of performing his/her duties and violence during education and discipline is closely related to the execution of his/her duties.

Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 68Da1542 delivered on March 4, 1969 (No. 17 ① 262) 74Da1441 delivered on December 14, 1976 (Gong1977,9813) 80Da7777 delivered on January 13, 1981

Long-do and four plaintiffs, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-at-law

Korea

Busan High Court Decision 92Na15581 delivered on February 3, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. Upon examining the evidence relations established by the court below based on the records, the fact-finding of the court below is justified and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, such as logical rules or empirical rules, and there is a proximate causal relation between the injury suffered by the plaintiff, such as the assault against the plaintiff Dog-do by the non-party, and if the facts were as recognized by the court below, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the causal relation like the theory of

2. "To perform the duties" under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act includes the act of performing the duties of a public official directly or closely related to the act of performing the duties of a public official, and when considering the appearance of the person who committed the act as a public official after objectively observing the appearance of the person who committed the act, it shall be deemed that the act was "to be performed by a public official even if the act was not actually a performance of duties or there was no subjective intent as a person who committed the act as a public official" (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da1542 delivered on March 4, 1969; Supreme Court Decision 74Da1441 delivered on December 14, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 80Da777 delivered on January 13, 1981).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the non-party, as a superior to the protection of the victim's disease, who was a subordinate of the above plaintiff, who was a subordinate of the above plaintiff who was newly transferred to the same sub-committee, caused the above plaintiff's Domination and violence as above. Since the education and discipline of the non-party was performed at least as a matter of duty, and the above violence during education and discipline is closely related to the execution of duty, and therefore, the non-party's assault against the above plaintiff can be deemed as a public official under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act as a matter of duty. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act or in the misapprehension of legal reasoning or the lack of reason as to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)