Whether a country is liable for damage to a firearms accident that occurred while a soldier gets involved in a sudden accident in barracks.

The firearms accidents that occur when the perpetrator and the victim captures the gun's balls without any connection with the official duties, and the remaining ball cartridgess are not deemed to be acts during the performance of duties.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da605, 606 Decided May 30, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 8606Da 8606 Decided May 30, 196, Decision No. 2(54)669 of the State Compensation Act)

Plaintiff

Countries

Busan District Court (69Da2843)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 2,171,367 won and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the following day of service to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution.

살피건대, 1968.4.2. 0:20경 원고의 아들로서 육군 제222 나이키 유도탄대대근무 병장 망 소외 1이 그 부대안에 있는 수송부사무실에서 제3포대장이던 소외 2소령 전용인 제1호 찝차 운전병인 소외 3의 권총 오발사고로 인하여 머리에 관통총상을 입고 숨진 사실은 당사자 사이에 아무런 이론이 없다.

The plaintiff's attorney asserted that the defendant was liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages, such as consolation money and consolation money, which could have been caused by the plaintiff's accident since the plaintiff's accident occurred from 25 years of age to 55. However, it is not a tort committed by a public official but a public official's duty. The above accident situation is around 23:40 of Apr. 1, 1968 that the non-party 2, who was the third gun commander, entered a field cafeteria to rest the accident and 5 of the plaintiff's seat and 45 days of the plaintiff's seat, and the non-party 3 et al., who was on duty, moved to the defendant's seat and 5 days of the plaintiff's seat and moved to the defendant's seat without any direction. Thus, the non-party 3, who was a driver, was able to get the plaintiff's seat and 45 days of the plaintiff's seat, and moved to the plaintiff's gun room without any direction.

The plaintiff's attorney argues that the defendant is an employer of the non-party 3 under the Civil Act who is obligated to compensate for the plaintiff's damages caused by the above accident, but the State is liable for damages against a public official's illegal act under the State Compensation Act or the Civil Act or the Civil Act, and the public official should be responsible for performing his duties. In this case, it is not just the fact that the public official committed the illegal act, but also the public official should be responsible for performing his duties. Thus, the above argument is groundless since the defendant is not liable for the damages caused by the above accident

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection shall be dismissed. However, since the judgment of the court below is identical with that of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed by Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 95 of the same Act to the burden of appeal cost

Judges Saples (Presiding Judge)