An act committed by a superior who threatens a gun with a private appraisal after drinking;

In order to get up the private appraisal by taking advantage of the cycle, the act of a superior to die of a subordinate to a firearms in order to discharge his/her own appraisal is not caused by negligence in connection with his/her duties during the performance of his/her duties.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da2475 delivered on December 29, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 2240 delivered on December 24, 196, Supreme Court Decision 15No30 delivered on June 15, 196, Decision 2(102)675 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Countries

Seoul Central District Court (66A5993) of the first instance court

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

The plaintiff et al.'s claim and objection appeal are dismissed, respectively.

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

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 70,00 and an annual amount of KRW 50,000 from April 20, 196 to the full payment system. The plaintiff et al.'s attorney shall seek a judgment and a provisional execution declaration that the litigation cost shall be borne by the defendant, and the defendant's litigation performer shall seek a judgment of dismissal of the plaintiff et al.

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. shall revoke (referring to the alteration) the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount equivalent to 926,813 won, 70,000 won, and 5 percent per annum from April 20, 196 to the full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances, and the defendant's performer shall seek a judgment in the place of the order.

Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Written Opinion), Gap evidence Nos. 6 (Verification Report), Gap evidence No. 7 (Post Inspection Report), Gap evidence No. 8-1 (Examination Report by Non-Party 1), Eul evidence No. 8-2 (Examination Report by Non-Party 2), and Gap evidence No. 10 (Judgment) without dispute over the establishment,

C. On April 9, 1966, Non-party 1, who is in the position of the 81st head of the 11st century, even though he was found to have been on the 12nd of the 11st century, was in the position of the 12nd of the 12nd of the 12nd of the 19th Army, and was in the position of the 11:0th of the 4th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 12nd of the 12nd of the 12nd of the 11st of the 19th Army, and was in the position of the 5th of the 196th of the 12nd of the 12nd of the 19th of the 19th of the 196th of the 196th of the 19th of the 196th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 4th of the 2nd of the 3th of the 3rd.

Therefore, without any need to further decide on the remaining points, the plaintiff et al.'s claim for this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the conclusion is unfair in the original judgment, the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff et al. is reasonable and there is no ground for appeal against the plaintiff et al., and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 385, 89, 95, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to the defendant.

Judges Park Jong-su (Presiding Judge)