2010Na5402 Compensation for damages

О (ххххXX-ххххххх)

광주 서구OO동 수▲예술원

Korea

The legal representative, Lee Jae-Nam

Litigation Performers Kim, Park

Gwangju District Court Decision 2009Da71430 Decided September 2, 2010

December 10, 2010

December 17, 2010

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above part shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with 5% interest per annum from December 21, 2005 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the plaintiff's failure, which constitutes the order to pay the following additional amounts, shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 98,267,500 won with 5% interest per annum from December 22, 2005 to the judgment of the court of first instance, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

Defendant: Judgment as referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article.

1. The basic facts and the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2-A of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

일반적으로 소송의 당사자는 소장의 당사자란 기재뿐만 아니라 청구의 취지 · 원인 그 밖의 일체의 기재 사항 등 소장 전체를 기준으로 합리적으로 해석 · 판단하여야 할 것인데(대법원 1996. 3. 22. 선고 94다61243 판결 등), 이 사건 소장에 피고를 표시함 에 있어 "대한민국, 위 법률상 대표자 법무부장관 김경한, 소관 : 소방방제청(♠▲▲▲▲ 소방서 파출소장)"이라고 기재되어 있음은 기록상 명백하고, 앞서 본 원고의 주장 내용 을 보태어 보면, 원고의 이 사건 청구는, 피고 대한민국을 상대로 하여 이 사건 붕괴사 고 당시 현장에 출동한 소방장 김 을 비롯한 소방관들( 이하 '이 사건 소방관들' 이라 한다)이 피고 대한민국 소속 공무원이거나 피고 대한민국의 사무를 처리하고 있었음을 전제로, 그 과정에서 위법한 공무집행으로 원고에게 손해가 발생하였다고 주장하면서 그 손해배상을 구하는 것임이 명백하다.

Therefore, in light of the purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 7 as to whether the fire officers of this case were public officials belonging to the Republic of Korea or were engaged in the affairs of the defendant Republic of Korea at the time of the collapse of this case, the fire officers of this case, who were dispatched to the scene at the time of the collapse of this case, are recognized as having caused local government-related affairs belonging to Gwangju Metropolitan City. Furthermore, the fire officers of this case were recognized as having caused the collapse of this case while performing rescue operations to prevent the collapse of the rain of this case. Accordingly, the fire officers of this case prescribed the fire prevention, alert, extinguishment, investigation and investigation of the fire as stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the Framework Act on Fire Services, and rescue and first-aid services, etc. in other emergency situations, and the above rescue operations also belong to the fire-fighting affairs of this case, which are entrusted by the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, or Do Governors under Article 6 of the same Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the fire officers of this case were dispatched to the site of the collapse accident of this case by public officials belonging to the Republic of Korea or public officials belonging to the Republic of Korea or the fire officers of this case are conducting the affairs of the Republic of Korea cannot be accepted as it is

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant who partly accepted the plaintiff's original claim of this case in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, it shall be conducted, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation part shall be dismissed, and the part against the plaintiff who rejected the plaintiff's claim of Na money of this case in the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal of this part shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Maximum (Presiding Judge)

Cho Ho-ho

Efficacy