Acquisition and decomposition of explosives and responsibility for State compensation;

Where a soldier is injured by another soldier due to explosion of the explosive in the course of acquisition and decomposition of the explosive without connection with his/her duties, the acquisition of the explosive and the decomposition of the explosive can not be deemed as the act of a soldier's duty or an act closely related thereto, regardless of the contents and appearance.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

67Da835 delivered on July 11, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 8485 delivered on July 11, 1967, Decision No. 2(6)670 of the State Compensation Act)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Countries

Seoul Central District Court (66A13084) of the first instance court

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. shall pay to the plaintiff 1 2,624,036 won 70,000 won per annum from August 26, 196 to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The defendant litigation performer shall have the same judgment as the order.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Official Certificate), 6 (Written Opinion), and 7 (Explosion) without dispute in the formation, the following facts may be acknowledged:

In other words, the non-party 1 was a person who was dispatched to the joint stock farm from July 1, 1966 to the third place of the 25th Army Group 72 jointly and severally, and was on duty for the joint stock farm from July 11, 1966, and on August 25, 196, the non-party 1 was under the command of non-party 2, who is the promotion of ten minutes: 72 joint stock of the association, such as plaintiffs 1 and other soldiers belonging to the first place of the association, to collect feed to be used in winter as about 50 meters from the above joint stock farm to the north, and he was trying to get the non-party 1 to sit at the five major shooting ranges located above 50 meters from the above joint stock farm and to stop the non-party 1 from spreading with the entrance of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 3 to the non-party 3 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the 7th of the entrance.

The plaintiff et al.'s attorney, as non-party 1, who acquired explosives in the above case, shall immediately report it to the superior and dispose of them safely or safely by other safe methods, despite the duty of care to prevent explosion accidents, and the defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by negligence in performing official duty. Since the explosion accident occurred in the military on September 22, 1965, the plaintiff 1 was discharged from the military on September 24, 1968, and it can not be viewed as the maximum working age of Korean people from the age of 1968 to 372 months, the plaintiff 1, etc.'s plaintiff 2, who suffered damages from the plaintiff 1, 300 won per annum from the age of 60 to the age of 300,000 won per annum, the plaintiff 2, who suffered damages from the plaintiff 1, 300 won per annum 1,500 won per day from the age of 60 to the age of 372,500 won per day.

According to the facts of the recognition of war, it is not related to the work performed by the non-party 1 under the instruction of his superior officer to collect feed for use in the stock farm operated by his solidarity. Although the non-party 1 acquired the same explosives during the feed gathering work hours, it can not be the act of performing his duties. Even if he provided with firearms, it cannot be the act of acquiring or carrying any dangerous weapons or explosives between any kind of military personnel, even if he provided with firearms, it cannot be seen as an act of performing his duties. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the act of acquiring or dismantling the explosives by the non-party 1 in wartime cannot be seen as an act of performing his duties in appearance, and it cannot be viewed as an act that is closely related to the duty of the military personnel or the act of removing them. Thus, the defendant is not liable to compensate for damages caused by the non-party 1's act of performing his duties.

Therefore, the plaintiff et al.'s claim of principal lawsuit shall be without merit, and the remaining points shall be dismissed, and since the part against the defendant who has different conclusions in the original judgment is unfair, it shall be revoked, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Judge)