In other words, it is recognized that the superior of the status of military personnel exercised his/her right of disciplinary action, leaving it to the middle and leaving it to the middle, and leaving it to the middle is a harmful act due to omission.

When the superior of the status of the military personnel shows that he/she has exercised his/her disciplinary right, and the subordinate has committed violence by blocking him/her in the middle, he/she has a duty to actively restrain him/her from doing so. Therefore, it is a harmful act due to omission.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na509 delivered on October 19, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na509 delivered on October 19, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

In this case, the facts established by the court below as to the reasons why the plaintiffs were killed as soldiers are as follows. In other words, the non-party 1 (the plaintiff's children) was replaced and paid 10 times as damages to the deceased on the ground that the non-party 2, who is his superior, was deprived of the deceased, and the non-party 2 did not have any duty of care to remove the deceased from his superior. The above non-party 2 did not have any duty of care to remove the deceased from his superior, and thus, the non-party 2 did not have any duty of care to remove the deceased from his subordinate, so the court below's non-party 1 did not have any such duty of care. The non-party 2's non-party 1, who was the non-party 2, who was the non-party 1's own subordinate, should be deemed to be the non-party 1's face to be the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's face.

The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)