On the other hand, it cannot be said that there is a proximate causal relation between the police officer and the occurrence of the result of a shooting exchange, on the ground that there was a negligence in handling a gun that is a dangerous object.

On the ground that the police officer had a negligence in dealing with the gun, it cannot be said that there is a proximate causal relation between the occurrence of the result of the use of the gun and the occurrence of the result of the use of the gun.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 763 of the Civil Act, Article 393(2) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Busan High Court Decision 69Na511 delivered on November 26, 1969

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

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal on the defendant Kim Jong-chul's trial. Despite the fact that the non-party 1 went to the Gyeong-nam Police Station (title omitted), while carrying a gun at the time of an accident, and put the gun in the front room for 11:30 minutes or more per annum, and the non-party 2 was able to have a gun at the time of an accident without any reasonable ground for appeal on the ground that the non-party 1 was unable to carry the gun at the time of an accident, and the non-party 1 was unable to have a gun at the time of an accident without any ground for appeal on the non-party 1's negligence. However, the court below determined that the non-party 2 was unable to have a gun at the time of an accident without any ground for appeal on the non-party 1's negligence and without any ground for appeal on the non-party 1's negligence, and did not have a fire-fighting gun at the time of an accident and without any ground for appeal on the non-party 1's fire-fighting gun at the time of an accident.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon