208 Gaz. 115495 Reimbursements

Korea

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

June 11, 2010

July 16, 2010

1. The Plaintiff shall pay 5,904.283 won to the Plaintiff, and 7,872,378 won to the Defendant, and 5% interest per annum from July 26, 2008 to July 16, 2010, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 70% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 65,603,150 won with 5% interest per annum from July 26, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relation between D and the Defendants

D was admitted to the E University on March 19, 2003 and was temporarily closed from school. On February 19, 2004, after entering the Army, it was posted to the 129 Field F of the 5th Field of the 5th class of the 5th class of the 129 class of the 129 class of the 5th class, and the defendant C is the commander of the subdivision belonging to the above company, the defendant A is the head of the above company, and the head of the above company, and the defendant B is the first officer belonging to the above company, who served as the plaintiff's appointed soldier from the above company.

(b) Circumstances of suicide of D;

(1) D had been subject to harsh acts, such as assault and verbal abuse, by the Defendants, who were appointed soldiers using the same internal arms as those belonging to the same company, as follows.

(A) On June 3, 2004, Defendant B: (a) on the ground that Defendant B was not well aware of the work guidelines of knee D on the ground that D was able to take part of D with knee on one occasion; (b) on June 12, 2004, around 22:47, Defendant B took part in D’s head of D’s bomb with the hand room on one occasion; and (c) on July 3, 2004, Defendant B did not take part in D’s battle from the inside room on one occasion on the ground that D’s am was found to have brought about combat with D on the ground that D’s am was found to have been off at a new place, but did not take part in D’s late duty at the later stage of boundary (04:00 to 0450) and did not take part in D’s behavior, i.e., she did not take part in D’s behavior.

(B) Defendant A, while serving with D around April 2004 at the end of the same time, took a bath on the ground that D’s work is bad and frequent, he was able to carry out the duty, and he was able to take care of D’s face once on the ground that D’s bucks were faced with D’s bucks at the end of May 2004, and that D’s bucks were faced with D’s face once on the ground that D’s bucks were broken at around the end of May 2004, and (2) around June 7, 2004, D’s head was 1 time on the part of D’s chest on the ground that D’s head was shick, and d’s face was tight, and D’s head was tight, and D’s face was shicked with D’s face without any justifiable reason.

(C) At around May 22, 2004, Defendant C, on the ground that D had not been reported as a worker on May 22, 2004, he was able to bucks twice at the last place, and that D was at least once at the end of 06:40 on June 2004, on the hand floor, on the ground that D was shouldered less than locking at the time of sunshine, Defendant C was able to d's bucks once at one time on the hand, and ③ on July 22, 2004, D's bucks twice as it was generated on the ground that D's bucks were cut down in an unbucked state, and "hacked with a saw," and "hacking it with a saw."

(3) Of the above paragraphs (2), each summary order (No. 04 high-ranking38 of the military court of the fifth group of military forces) against Defendant C was finalized, with the exception of the part on which a non-prosecution disposition was rendered on the ground that there was no evidence to prove confessions. (3), (2), (3), (4) and (3), (3) as to Defendant B, a fine of 50,000 won against Defendant A, a fine of 80,000 won against Defendant C, and a fine of 1,50,000 won against Defendant C.

(4) Around July 2, 2004, D had been placed in the position of its father, and had been pointed out more than other private soldiers because he was unable to adapt to military life, and had been able to see that he was fluor G, who was a fluor, was fluor, and the Defendant C said that “it is difficult to adapt to military life” or “to do so,” and that he was fluored by phone call to H, his father, and that he was unable to live in military life.

(5) On July 3, 2004, D completed the boundary duty with Defendant B and took place with Defendant B around 05:15. At around 06:00, D was turned back to the hospital after being found to be the first place by string the string of battles on the deaf-gu farm located within the above company (at the time of discovery, there was no self-harm at the time of discovery).

(6) Around the 0th anniversary of the fact-finding that Defendant 2’s act of suicide was diagnosed as 00, and thus, Defendant 1’s act of 000 military units were restored to 40% of the above-mentioned suicide. However, Defendant 2’s act of 00 military units with 0% of the above-mentioned suicide injury and 5% of the above-mentioned suicide losses were likely to be caused by 00 military units, and Defendant 2’s act of 00 military units were likely to cause 4 military suicide. Defendant 2’s act of 00 military units’ suicide and 5% of the above-mentioned suicide losses were likely to be caused by 00 military units, and Defendant 2’s act of 00 military units’ act of 4 military suicide was not likely to cause 5% of the above-mentioned suicide and thus, Defendant 2’s act of 00 military units’ suicide was likely to cause 5% of the Plaintiff’s suicide and 3784.

D. Payment of compensation by the plaintiff

The Plaintiff paid the principal amount of KRW 65,603,153 on July 25, 2008 to D and its parents on the basis of the above final judgment (=the principal amount of KRW 49,290,141 + KRW 16,313,012 for delay damages up to July 25, 2008). The Plaintiff did not dispute over the ground for recognition 【No dispute over the ground for recognition】 the evidence Nos. 1-2, 1-2, 1-5, 1-2, 11 through 14, 15-1 through 6, 16-20, 16-1 through 20, 1-1, 1-1, 1-1, 1-2, 1-1, 1-2, and 1-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination

A. Formation of a claim for indemnity;

The above recognized facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above recognized evidence, i.e., (i) in the military where strict regulations and collective action is emphasized, unlike the general society, the meaning of verbal abuse from appointed soldiers and violence and damage therefrom is significantly different from that of the general society due to their control and closure; (ii) in the case where an appointed soldier in the military scambly makes a extreme choice of suicide, it has been widely known through the media, etc.; and the Defendants are also deemed to have been well aware of the risk of cruel acts conducted in the military through various oral preventive education, etc. conducted by the media or the military scambly; and (iii) in light of the fact that there was no possibility that there was a serious causal link between the Defendants’ suicide and other diseases because they could not adapt to the military life since they were placed within the military, and thus, they would have been unable to make sure that there was a serious causal causal link between the Defendants’ suicide and their attempt to commit suicide by failing to provide them with necessary mental assistance, or by failing to provide them with sufficient consideration.

Furthermore, in accordance with the judgment of the above claim for damages filed by D, etc., the Plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation against the Defendants in accordance with Article 2(2) of the State Compensation Act, since it compensates D, etc. for the damages caused by

(b) Scope of the right of indemnity;

(1) Meanwhile, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the prevention of cruel acts in the military unit through education and life guidance for private soldiers, the management of private soldiers who are unable to adapt well to the military life, and the possibility of cruel acts by the appointed soldiers in the military and suicide accidents caused by such acts in the military, and the prevention of suicide accidents was not performed properly despite the duty to prevent the occurrence of suicide by taking measures to prevent them from being committed. The Defendants, the officers of the affiliated units of D, and the officers of the affiliated units of the same military, and the same soldiers from the military, were negligent in directing and supervising the suicide, thereby causing the occurrence of the occurrence of the incident of D’s attempted suicide. The Defendants, after entering the military, have faithfully performed their duties in accordance with the principles of the damage compensation system, should limit their responsibility to 30%.

(2) In addition, when the State exercises the right to indemnity against several public officials who are joint tortfeasors under the State Compensation Act, each public official shall bear the installment obligation according to their respective shares. In this case, the share of the burden shall be determined according to their shares and their shares of contribution as a result of the occurrence of damages. Therefore, considering the difference in the position of the Defendants, the difference in the degree of the fault of the Defendants against D's suicide, and the degree of negligence of the Defendants against D' suicide, it is reasonable to view that the share of the burden is 40%, and 30%, respectively.

(3) Therefore, when calculating the amount of indemnity by the Defendants according to the above ratio, Defendant A and B constitute KRW 5,904,283 (i.e., KRW 65,603,153 X0.3 x 0.3 x less than KRW 0.3, 0.3; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Defendant C constitute KRW 7,872,378 (=65,603,153 x 0.3 x 0.4).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant A and B are obligated to pay each of the above amounts of KRW 5,904,283 to the Plaintiff, Defendant C, and each of the above amounts of KRW 7,872,378 from July 26, 2008, which is the day following the date when the Plaintiff completed compensation for damages in accordance with the judgment of the above claim for damages, to the extent that it is reasonable for the Defendants to resist the existence or scope of the above amounts of money, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 16, 2010, which is the date when the judgment was rendered, until July 16, 2010, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day when the full payment is made. Accordingly, each of the claims against the Defendants of the Plaintiff are justified within the extent of the above recognition, and

Effectiveness of judges;