1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) decided to file a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff regarding the kidnapping and robbery of the Plaintiff, which occurred at the time of August 2013, 2013, at the Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant documents”); and (b) collected 17 copies of a witness’s statement, etc. (hereinafter “instant documents”); and (c) submitted the instant documents to the Seongdong-gu District Police Station through B, the Plaintiff’s seat to receive the instant documents to the Seoul Gangnam Police Station; and (d) on December 26, 2014, the public official in charge of the Seongdong-gu District Postal Service sent the said documents to the Seongdong-gu District Police Station D, the Seoul Gangnam Police Station D.

B. On December 29, 2014, the instant document was delivered to the Seoul Gangnam Police Station, and on the same day, the said police station police station entered the arrival of the said document in the same day register.

However, immediately after that, as the location of the document of this case is not confirmed, the staff in charge of the receipt of the case at the above police station investigation support team confirmed that the document of this case was finally lost as a response to the plaintiff's civil petition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 2 of the State Compensation Act regarding the cause of a claim, the State or a local government shall compensate for damages in cases where a public official or a private person entrusted with official duties causes damages to another person by intention or negligence in the course of performing his/her duties. The loss of evidentiary materials submitted by the police station in charge of criminal cases constitutes a tort because the public official clearly violates his/her duty of care in keeping documents assigned in the course of performing his/her duties.

According to the above facts, a public official belonging to the Seoul Gangnam Police Station under the defendant lost the above documents because he received the documents of this case from the plaintiff and neglected to manage them, which constitutes a tort against the plaintiff.