The case holding that the State's liability for compensation is recognized by recognizing the negligence of neglecting the police officers belonging to the police station's duty to prevent and refrain from committing violence between the number of inmates occurring in the cell of the police station where the inmate was confined without distinction of the number of inmates in excess of the number

The case holding that the State's liability for compensation is recognized by recognizing the negligence of neglecting the police officers under his/her duty to prevent and refrain from committing violence between the inmates of pots occurring in the cell of the police station, which was taken in the mixed confinement without distinguishing the number of inmates in excess of the number

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorney Oh Jeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

November 10, 1999

1. The defendant,

A. Plaintiff 1 and 2 each amounting to KRW 87,69,600;

B. Each of the plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 shall be paid 1,00,000 won and 5% per annum from January 18, 1999 to December 1, 199, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff 1 and 2's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the plaintiffs 1, 2 and the defendant is ten minutes, and the remainder is borne by the above plaintiffs, and the amount arising between the plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 and the defendant is borne by the defendant respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court below as stated in Paragraph (b) of this Article and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 95,69,600 won, gold 92,69,600 won to the plaintiff 2, and gold 92,69,600 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from January 18, 1999 to the date of this sentencing, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Basic facts;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each statement of Gap evidence of No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and Eul evidence of No. 1 through No. 23 (including all evidence attached to No. 1).

(1) The deceased Nonparty is a person who died of an assault accident in the detention room as seen below; Plaintiff 1’s father, Plaintiff 2’s mother, Plaintiff 3, 4, and 5’s sibling; and the Defendant is a supervisor with respect to police officers belonging to the Gyeonggi National Police Agency (Seoul Police Agency omitted) Police Station under the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs.

(2) On December 10, 1998, the deceased Nonparty was detained due to the suspicion of larceny and violation of the Road Traffic Act, and was confined to the (defluence omitted), the (defluence omitted) police station room No. 9 (hereinafter “the instant substitute room”) located in the (defluence omitted) police station room located in the (defluence omitted) police station room located in the (defluence omitted) police station room (hereinafter “the instant substitute room”). The area of the substitute room of this case was 8.67 square meters (the area of the room was 6.36 square meters), and 25 persons, including the deceased Nonparty, were reduced, in excess of the maximum capacity of 2.5 visitors per square year.

(3) Nonparty 1, who was under suspicion of violence, etc., was also the so-called head of the military room on the grounds that the military force was high. Nonparty 2, 3, 4, and 5, who was under suspicion of violence, etc. also committed assault and cruel acts against other prisoners, such as the deceased Nonparty, etc. from time to time, and formed a field.

(4) Around 00:10 on January 18, 1999, Nonparty 1 had the deceased Nonparty and Nonparty 6 of the East Facoscison prepared. The head of the household hold garbage again in the debris, making the deceased Nonparty 1 take the garbris, and then hold the flab with the deceased Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 8 of the East Facoscison, and she was flabed without the flabing, the deceased Nonparty 8 was able to avoid liability, and the deceased Nonparty 8 was flabed with the 103cm higher than the deceased Nonparty, and she was flabed with the body of the deceased’s head, and then she was flabed with the body of the deceased’s head, and then she was flabed with the body of the deceased’s head.

(5) Accordingly, Nonparty 1 et al., who was killed in the deceased Nonparty 1 et al. tried to have an artificial smoking. The contact was made to the police officer from the deceased Nonparty 9 (at that time, Nonparty 10 and Nonparty 13 et al. were working for the settlement staff Nonparty 11 and Nonparty 12 and Nonparty 13 et al. in the front patrol staff on the second floor of the front guard, and on the first floor, on the settlement staff Nonparty 10 and Nonparty 13, et al., who were employed in the entire patrol staff, but did not find the above violence accident until the guards contact. However, the deceased Nonparty died from an emergency so far as he was on the part of the deceased.

B. Determination

(1) According to the above facts, the location of the accident in this case is generally anticipated that many violence incidents may occur among them due to the appraisal of the suppression of capital reduction as a detention room, and there is no other place to escape from harmful act, and it is difficult for police officers or police officers to restrain it. Thus, police officers or police officers who have the duty to monitor the reduction of capital should pay attention not to exceed the fixed number of prisoners in accepting the reduction of capital and take into account the quality of the crime. In the case of mixed confinement without distinguishing the nature of the crime in excess of the fixed number of prisoners according to the circumstances of the confinement facility, they should thoroughly monitor and conduct surveillance and inspections by predicting various accidents, such as private sanctions, etc. by violence between the confineds who may occur due to the occurrence of violence, such as Nonparty 1, etc., and have the duty to prevent accidents, such as taking special measures in advance, and to immediately restrain them in the case of violence, etc.

Nevertheless, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the police officers belonging to the (name omitted) police station of Nonparty 9, etc., due to the negligence of neglecting the above duty of prevention and control. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the deceased, Nonparty, and the plaintiffs due to the negligence of the above police officers who are public officials under the State Compensation Act.

(2) In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the center part of the entrance of this case is set up in iron plates, and that there is partitions installed to prevent toilets and rooms, making it difficult for the Defendant to observe the toilets inside the outside, and that the above assault accident did not occur between the common sense and did not take preventive measures in advance.

In this case, there was a partitions with a height of 103cm in height of the toilet and room, and the assault accident occurred relatively short time, as seen above, however, the above partitions did not interfere with the whole space between the school toilets, and thus the internal surveillance inside the toilet in the outside was not entirely impossible (if surveillance is impossible due to the above partitions, other preventive measures should have been taken for monitoring the water reduction, such as lowering the height of the partitions, etc.) even if it was difficult to prevent the violence during the process, it cannot be denied any error that could not be prevented in advance. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

The net income loss equivalent to the monetary total appraised value of the capacity of operation lost by the accident of this case is 145,39,200 won calculated at the present price at the time of the accident of this case under the Hofman Calculation Act, based on the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows: (1) based on the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows; and (2) as follows, pursuant to the Hofman Calculation Act, which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month according to the discount method.

(1) Facts and details of assessment

(a) Gender: Male;

Date of birth: March 22, 1975

The age at the time of the accident: 23 years of age and 9 months;

The average male life of the above age: 48.02

(b) Residential rights: Rural communities;

(C) Income status, operating period, and operating days

The monthly unit wage for ordinary workers engaged in rural daily work from January 18, 1999 to 60 years of age, which is the date of the accident in this case, shall be 908,750 won (gold 36,350 won x25 days) around October 1998, as the plaintiffs seek.

(e) Deduction for living costs: It shall be estimated to the extent of one-third of the revenue.

Monthly income after deduction of living expenses shall be no more than 605,830 won (gold 908,750 won x 2/3, and less than 00 won as requested by the plaintiffs).

(Evidence) Evidence Nos. 2-1, 5, and 6-1, 2-2 of each evidence, and the whole purport of each pleading

(2) Calculation

gold 605,830 Won x 240 = gold 145,39,200

* Hofmanmany 247.502 or 240 shall apply mutatis mutandis to HSfmany.

(b) Funeral expenses.

Plaintiff 1’s assertion that funeral expenses of the deceased Nonparty paid KRW 5,00,000,00, such as medical expenses, permanent tea expenses, food expenses, and fire extinguishing equipment, etc., the Plaintiff claimed KRW 3,000,000 among them, but this part of the claim is not accepted as there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

(c) Compensation money;

(1) Reasons for consideration: the background and result of the instant accident, the deceased Nonparty and the Plaintiffs’ age, family relationship;

Other circumstances shown in the argument of this case

(2) The amount of decision

The deceased Non-Party: 20,000,000 won

Plaintiff 1 and 2: each of the gold 5,000,000

Plaintiff 3, 4, and 5: 1,000,000 each amount

(d) Inheritance relations; and

(1) The deceased Nonparty’s property heir: Plaintiff 1, 2

(2) Amount of inherited bonds

Gold 165,39,200 won (145,399,200 won for lost income + 20,000 won for consolation money)

(c)the amount of inheritance;

Plaintiff 1 and 2: each gold 82,69,600 won (gold 165,399,200 x0.5)

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 the amount of KRW 87,69,600 (the inheritance amount of KRW 82,69,600 + KRW 5,000,000 + the consolation money of KRW 1,00,000,000 each for the plaintiff 3,4, and 5 respectively, and each of them shall be 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 18, 1999, the date of death of the deceased non-party until December 1, 199, and 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Accordingly, each of the claims of the plaintiff 1 and 2 for this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims shall be dismissed, and each of the claims of the plaintiff 3, 4, and 5 shall be justified as per each of the judgment.

Judges Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-hee