The case holding that the State's liability for damages is recognized on the ground that the use of a weapon beyond the necessary limit for arresting an offender, on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the use of a gun is an act to prevent the current unfair infringement or substantial action to avoid any danger, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it is an act to avoid the current danger, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the use of a weapon was a use of a weapon to the extent that it is necessary for the arrest of an offender.

The case holding that the State's liability for damages is recognized on the ground that the use of a weapon beyond the necessary limit for arresting an offender, on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the use of a gun is an act to prevent the current unfair infringement or substantial action to avoid any danger, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it is an act to avoid the current danger, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the use of a weapon was a use of a weapon to the extent that it is necessary for the arrest of an offender.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 11 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Articles 21 and 22 of the Criminal Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na4747 delivered on January 30, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the victim was living in front of Nonparty 1's house and escaped without any attack against Nonparty 2, a police officer's order, and caused the victim to die in the spot by launching a gun on the light that the non-party 2 was able to kill and sacrife the gun, and let him die in the spot, and determined that the use of the gun above cannot be deemed as an act to prevent unfair infringement at the present time or to avoid any danger at the present, and therefore, it used the gun beyond the necessary limit for arresting the criminal. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and decision are just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the mistake of facts or the execution of duties under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to argue.

In addition, the claim for the reimbursement of consolation money of KRW 2,700,000 among the theories is justified on the ground that it is not alleged in the fact-finding court.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)