The State's liability for an explosion of a soldier who has stolen a flooded coal, and the State's liability for damages.

Even if a person was deprived of a kind of coal and left away from his/her rank, the State shall be held liable for damages if the Plaintiff, who was under his/her real name, was on the part of his/her superior, by neglecting the management of the ammunition and making a false report on the fact that he/she was found to have been stolen, due to negligence on the part of his/her superior, such as neglecting the management of the ammunition and the management of the military force, on the ground that he/she was negligent by neglecting his/her superior, such as by neglecting the management of the ammunition and making a false report on the fact that he/she was stolen.

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

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1523 Delivered on November 11, 1980

Plaintiff 1 and two plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea shall be the Minister of Justice of the litigation performer who is appointed by the Minister of Justice to complete his/her stay in English, English, family name, transfer of family name, and

Daegu High Court Decision 80Na1060 delivered on November 21, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party belonging to the Army under the defendant's control was found to have committed an explosion of 14 March 14, 1979 on the ground that the non-party was negligent in 100,000 on the ground that the non-party's negligence did not constitute an explosion of 100 m3 p.m. on the ground that the non-party's negligence did not constitute an explosion of 1 p.m. and the non-party's negligence on the ground that the non-party's negligence did not constitute an explosion of 1 p.m. on the ground that the non-party's negligence did not constitute an explosion of 1 p.m. on the ground that the non-party's negligence did not constitute an explosion of 1 p.m. and the non-party's negligence on the ground that the non-party's negligence did not constitute an explosion of 1 p.m. and the non-party's negligence on the ground that the non-party's negligence was found to constitute an explosion of 2 p.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the expenses under its jurisdiction are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)