Negligence and national compensation in the event of training of veterinary shots of the candidates for officers who belong to the Army Nursing School students;

In the course of swimming training under the direction of Non-Party 1’s captain, Nonparty 3, who is the officer candidate who is the joint officer of the Army Nursing School student, listens to the extraction of safety pins from the above school officers over about 15 minutes, and then explosions within 4 through 5 seconds if safety knife is not taken, safety pins shall be extracted from the school officers, and safety pins shall be rounded off to the knife the correct hand, and the knife the knife first waits of the school officers, and the knife the knife of the knife that the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da2002 Delivered on December 3, 1968

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (66A7828) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 66Da7828)

(1) The part against the plaintiff in the plaintiffs' claims recognized below in the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount equivalent to 434,711 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from February 17, 1966 to the full payment.

(3) The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

(4) The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs through the first and second trials, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant.

(5) Of the above paragraphs (2), Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 can be provisionally executed only for KRW 400,000 and KRW 200,000.

The defendant filed a judgment with the plaintiff 1 to pay 591,002 won to the plaintiff 1 to the plaintiff 2 with an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from February 17, 1966 to the full payment of 591,000 won, and the defendant filed a provisional execution order to pay to the plaintiff 1 to the plaintiff 2 937,428 won with an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from February 17, 1966 to the full payment of 5 percent per annum.

The Plaintiffs revoked the original judgment and sought a judgment such as the entry in the purport of the claim.

1. In light of the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 7-1, and 1, 2 (except for the part which is not believed to be part of the future), evidence Nos. 8 and 9, testimony of Non-party 1 (except for the 1, 2) and the result of the on-site inspection of party members, and appraisal statement by Non-party 2, Non-party 3, who is a candidate for officers of the Korea Army Academy student, is a joint officer of the Korea Army Academy student, at around 13:00 on February 16, 1966, when he conducts hydropathal training under the direction of Non-party 1's captain at the third head of the above school, the victim's 1, and the victim's 15 minutes away from the above 15 minutes away from the above 3th head of the above school, and then the victim's 1, as the 3th head of the above 4th son's son's son's son's son and the son's son's k's k's k's k.

Thus, the above victim would have died due to the negligence in performing public duties of the non-party 3, who is a public official belonging to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant has a duty to compensate the above victim and the plaintiffs for the property and mental damage.

2. Therefore, we first examine the amount of compensation for property damage.

(1) According to the above facts, the above victim was clear that he was a candidate at the time of the accident in this case. As the training period for the officer candidate was seven months after the defendant was not clearly disputed, the above victim shall be deemed to have led to confession. Thus, the above victim lost the candidate candidate's salary of KRW 2,080 every month for seven months after the accident occurred (the above victim's remaining education period is lost as officer candidate only during the remaining education period of the above victim, and the officer's salary was lost since he was appointed as officer after the completion of the education course, but the plaintiffs voluntarily claimed only the officer candidate's salary income for seven months after the accident, and the amount of the officer's salary is smaller than the officer's salary amount, so the above victim shall be calculated by deducting the current officer's salary amount of KRW 2,080 from the annual salary amount of KRW 2,080 per annum pursuant to the above Military Personnel Remuneration Rules (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2364 of January 7, 1966).

(2) Subsequent to the completion of the officer candidate training course, the above victim is the ground for being appointed as an officer pursuant to Article 11 subparagraph 2 of the Military Personnel Management Act (Article 11 subparagraph 1 of the former Military Personnel Management Act provides that the above victim is aware of the person who cannot complete the training course due to sexual failure, military harm, physical disability, etc. among the officer candidate's candidates. However, according to the witness non-party 1's testimony, the above person's testimony is merely one or two out of the 1st 250 persons, so it can be known that such person belongs to special exception, and the above victim is deemed to have completed the training course and become the above victim in this case without any evidence that the above victim could have expected to belong to the above special exception. According to the evidence Nos. 6-1 and 2 of the former Military Personnel Management Act, according to the above victim's evidence No. 6-1 and 1966-10 of the second half of the retirement age which the above victim planned to be the so-called officer officer's.

(3) Finally, from the retirement age of the so-called victim as above, the above victim was able to obtain wages from at least 40% of the above income for daily work in agricultural villages. Such labor is clear in our rule of experience that can normally be worked by the age of 55. Thus, Gap evidence 2-2 who did not dispute over the establishment and the testimony of non-party 5 witness 2-2 and the rural daily wage around December 1966 is average of 237 won (it is the plaintiff's claim for wages at the earlier time, as the plaintiff's claim was made, although it was possible to claim the wages at the time of the closing of argument,) average monthly work hours are 25 days. Since the monthly average living cost is about 40% of the above income, the above victim would lose the net monthly income from the above period, but it would be less than the plaintiffs' own monthly income from 3,555 won, which would be less than 3,425% of the cost income per se.

(4) Thus, the above victim’s property damages amounting to KRW 1,154,134, which is the sum of the amounts in each of the preceding paragraphs, and the Plaintiffs inherited the right to claim compensation for KRW 769,423, and KRW 384,711, in proportion to their respective shares of inheritance.

3. Next, it is clear that the above victim died of the above victim due to the accident of this case, and therefore, it would have caused severe mental distress to the plaintiffs. Considering the situation of the accident of this case and all the circumstances indicated in the records such as the plaintiffs' property, educational level and family relation, it is reasonable that 50,000 won should be applied to the plaintiffs respectively to the amount for suffering from mental distress.

4. Ultimately, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at a rate of five percent per annum from February 17, 1966, the day following the occurrence of the accident in this case, to Plaintiff 1, 819,423, 434,711, and these money to Plaintiff 2. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is groundless and dismissed as it is without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is unfair within the scope mentioned above, and it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim in whole, and the plaintiffs' appeal is reasonable. Accordingly, with respect to the cancellation of the original judgment within the above unfair limit and the imposition of legal costs, Article 89, 92, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be revoked, and with respect to the issuance of provisional execution, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 199 (1) of the same Act.

Appointment of a judge or assistant (Presiding Judge) or higher-level meeting;