The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff A is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s appeal, the lower court dismissed Plaintiff A’s claim for consolation money on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that Plaintiff A, who was the shot of the deceased and the dead body of the deceased T, suffered emotional distress beyond the permissible limit under the generally accepted social norms, due to the death of the deceased.

The spouse of the injured party who has lost his/her life due to the illegal act of another person may claim consolation money pursuant to Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act by proving the mental suffering.

According to the records, the plaintiff A, who was killed for the reason that he was a member of the National Report Federation while living together with the deceased S. at the time, was directly recovered. Thus, if all the circumstances are the same, the plaintiff A may claim consolation money as it is reasonable in light of the empirical rule to deem that he was suffering from mental suffering due to the death of the deceased.

The lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the claim for consolation money, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the defendant's appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal, since the instant case occurred before the State Compensation Act was enacted, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to claim for State compensation, but Article 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea (which was enacted on July 17, 1948 and amended on June 15, 1960) provides that “any person who suffers damage due to a public official’s tort in the course of performing his/her duties may claim for compensation against the State or a public organization.” Thus, this part of the ground for appeal is without merit.

On the other hand, the ground of appeal that the lawsuit of this case constitutes a party suit under public law and constitutes an infringement of exclusive jurisdiction is not accepted as it is merely an independent opinion.

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court, based on the adopted evidence, belongs to the Defendant.