2017Nu87571 Revocation of dismissal of application for payment of consolation money, etc.

A

Deliberation Committee on Support for Victims

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap78745 decided November 17, 2017

May 17, 2018

June 28, 2018

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On July 25, 2016, the defendant's decision to dismiss the application for payment of consolation money, etc. against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds alleged by the defendant in the trial while filing an appeal do not differ from the contents alleged by the defendant in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial together with the defendant's assertion is re-examineed, the decision of the first instance court, which accepted the plaintiff's claim, is justified.

Therefore, the reasoning for this case is that the court added "Isia consistently stated that Isia was a part of the floor size of the damaged part of the first instance judgment." The witness B of the first instance court also testified that "Isia, at the time when Isia first discovered the explosives of this case," "Isia stated that "Isia was a part of the body size of the damaged part," and this is consistent with the external appearance and size of the light mine (for example, there are entirely different types of hydrogen or bombs that the defendant alleged to be the explosives of this case, which are all different in form)." On the fifth fifth following the fifth first instance judgment, it is somewhat inconsistent with the first instance judgment that "Isia stated that the ground for explosion of the explosive of this case, which the plaintiff stated, was the same as that of the second instance judgment, and it is difficult for the court to see that there was no possibility of a long-standing change in the explosion of this case as seen earlier, because it is difficult for the plaintiff's reason that it was a party to the accident of this case.

2. Conclusion

If so, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge, Ginju

Judges Min Il-young

Judges Lee Jae-in