Cases where duties may be deemed to be "the performance of duties" in Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act;

The driver's act of operation of the driver's disease is liable by the State for an act of objectively performing official duties or an act related to this, if the driver's disease, who was self-fashed by the deceased, was fashed to her own direction and changed to her own direction, and he continued to be uneasiness at late night, even though she was fashed by her own body at late night.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1442 delivered on October 22, 1968 (Dakad 7053 delivered on October 1968, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 67Da2046 delivered on December 29, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 2197DaKad 2197 delivered on December 15, 199, Supreme Court Decision 2(101)675 of the State Compensation Act)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

The State

Daegu District Court of First Instance (69Ga3749)

The part concerning Plaintiff 1 in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 960,00 and the amount of KRW 360,000,000 per annum from November 15, 1969 to the other 60,000 and the other 600,000,00 per annum from July 2, 1970 to the date of each full payment.

Plaintiff 1’s remaining claims are dismissed.

Plaintiff 2 and 3’s incidental appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant (excluding the costs of appeal against the plaintiff 1) shall be borne by the same plaintiff, the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, and the costs of appeal incurred by the defendant 2 and the incidental appeal between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant shall be borne by each appellant and the incidental appellant.

The part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment shall be revoked.

As to the money of KRW 1,728,365, and KRW 200,00 for each of the above money and KRW 600,000 for Plaintiff 1 and the remaining money of KRW 1,128,365 for Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 from November 15, 1969, the Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff 1 the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from the day following the service date of the application for extension of claim to the day of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 1의 1(호적등본), 같은 2(사망진단서), 같은 4(공소장), 같은 5( 소외 1에 대한 피의자신문조서), 같은 6(공판조서), 공성부분의 성립에 다툼이 없으므로 전체의 성립이 추정되는 갑 1의 2(동일인증명)호증의 각 기재내용과 당사자변론의 전 취지를 종합하면, 피고예하의 육군 제5군관구 사령부 수송중대 소속 운전병 상병 소외 1은 1969.6.27. 21:30경 소속부대의 11호 찝차에 위 사령부 감찰부 소속 소령 소외 2 외 1명을 태워 그 숙소인 대구시 남구 대명동 번지 미상지까지 퇴근시키고 귀대하던 도중 같은날 23:00경 위 같은동 소재 영남대학앞 노상에서 버스를 기다리던 망 소외 3에게 동인의 행선지까지 태워 주겠다고 자청하여 동녀를 승차시킨 후 갑자기 방향을 바꾸어 동녀의 행선지와는 정반대쪽인 대구시 성당동 쪽으로 운행을 하자 처녀의 몸으로 늦은 밤에 불안감을 느낀 동녀가 하차시켜 줄 것을 간청하였음에도 불구하고 이에 불응하고 계속 질주한 관계로 같은날 23:20시경 같은동 원호청앞 노상에 이르렀을 때 동녀가 자동차에서 뛰어 내리다가 지면에 추락하여 뇌진탕, 두개강내 출혈등의 상처를 입고 다음날 24:20경 위 상처로 인한 호흡증후 마비로 사망에 이르른 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정에 일부 배치되는 위 갑 5호증의 기재부분은 믿을 수 없고, 타에 아무런 반증이 없는 바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 상병 소외 1은 위와 같은 경우 불안감을 느낀 피해자가 하차를 요구하였을 때 이를 거절하고 계속 질주하면 피해자가 뛰어 내리다가 불의의 사고가 발생할 수 있다는 것을 예측할 수 있는 것이므로 즉시 정차하여 피해자를 안전하게 하차시켜 줄 의무가 있는 것임에도 불구하고 이를 이행하지 아니한 과실로 인하여 피해자를 사망케 한 것이라고 인정할 수 있다.

However, although the above accident was caused by the driver non-party 1 to immediately return to his superior, it was caused by the accident that occurred while driving a female for the purpose of amusement, regardless of whether he was performing his official duties. Thus, the defendant's state is not liable to compensate for it. However, as the above acknowledged fact is that the driver non-party 1's act is not an act in official duty or an act related to it when objectively observe the act of the driver non-party 1 as a matter of fact, it cannot be viewed as an act in official duty as a vehicle for returning to his superior or an act related to it. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant's state is groundless.

Therefore, the defendant state is liable for damages caused by the accident of this case.

However, although the cause of this accident is known to the public that the civilian can not get aboard the military vehicle, the victim, such as the above recognition, is on board with the inducement of the driver's disease, and is found out from the vehicle in the remainder of the situation, so the victim's negligence is concurrent with the accident in this case, and therefore, it should be considered in calculating the amount of damages.

Furthermore, in light of the purport of the plaintiff's argument as to the amount of damages, the plaintiff 1 is the mother of the deceased non-party 3, and the plaintiff 2 and 3 is the father's grandparents. The deceased non-party 3 is the mother of the deceased non-party 19 years old at the time of death, and has received an average of 9,000 won per month and consumed 4,000 won per month as their daily living expenses and obtained an average of 5,00 won per month. The fact that the average female of health chain of 19 years old is 47.81 years old, and 50 years old, and at least 60 years old, can get the net income by working at the occupation of the country until 19 years old x 30 years old x 160 won per month after deducting the amount of 160 won per month of death x 305 years old x 205% per month of death x 205% of the average amount of 2000 won per month.

With respect to the claim for consolation money, the deceased non-party 3 suffered enormous mental suffering until the deceased non-party 3 died. The plaintiffs who have such status also suffered enormous mental suffering due to the female's non-fluor's death is in accordance with the rule of experience. With regard to the amount, considering all circumstances such as the degree of negligence of both the circumstances of the accident as shown in the pleading, it is reasonable to determine that the plaintiffs 1, 180,000 won for the deceased non-party 3, 180,000 won for the deceased non-party 3, 180,000 won for each money to the plaintiff 2 and 3, who are the grandparents.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant as above are justified within the limit of KRW 960,00,00 in total to the plaintiff 1, and KRW 990,00,00 in total to the plaintiff 2 and 3 as well as damages for delay in accordance with the rate of KRW 50,00 per annum from the date of entry of the order requested by the plaintiffs to complete payment, and the remainder is unfair and dismissed. Since the part concerning the plaintiff 1 in the original judgment is partly unfair, the defendant's appeal and incidental appeal of the plaintiff 2 and 3 are without merit, and they are dismissed as per Disposition under Article 96, 95, 92, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)