Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Jeong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Attorney Kim Chang-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 27, 2016

1. The defendant shall pay to plaintiffs 1 and 2 35,820,225 won, respectively, and 5% interest per annum from September 12, 2015 to June 17, 2016, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff and the defendants bear 50% of the costs of lawsuit.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to plaintiffs 1 and 2 11,435,09 won each of them, 3, and 4 73,730,337 won each per annum from September 12, 2015 to the service date of a copy of the complaint, and 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition

1) Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the parents of Nonparty 1 who died, and Plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the children of Nonparty 1.

2) Nonparty 1 conspiredd with Nonparty 3, who is Nonparty 2’s children. Nonparty 2 was found to have imprisoned it, but on September 9, 2015, Nonparty 1 found Nonparty 1 under the influence of alcohol and took a bath to Nonparty 1, who was the date when he was boomed.

3) On September 12, 2015, Nonparty 2, in his own house, exchanged with Nonparty 1, and took a serious bath to Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 1, in this way, prepared for the transition of Nonparty 2’s house, which was in the defective kitchen, with Nonparty 2’s house, in advance, and Nonparty 1 made a clerical error. Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3’s house are the address 1 omitted) and ○○△△△△△.

4) Nonparty 3, together with Nonparty 2, reported Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, waiting for Nonparty 1, Nonparty 21:12:11 mobile phone, and requested Nonparty 2 to dispatch the police officer. Nonparty 21:27:22, who did not go to the police officer after the report was made, urged Nonparty 2 to send the police officer by sending the phone to Nonparty 112.

5) At around 21:40, Nonparty 2 discovered Nonparty 1, along with Nonparty 3, from the frontway of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Real Estate located in Yongsan-gu ( Address 2 omitted), who is the head of the office, and led Nonparty 2 to die with Nonparty 1 as a fiff and die with Nonparty 1.

6) Although Nonparty 3 reported in advance 112, the police officer arrived at the site after the occurrence of the murder incident, and the progress from Nonparty 3’s report to the dispatch of the police officer is as follows.

① In the general situation room of the Seoul Local Police Agency 21:12:11, an violent report (it refers to the first report made by Nonparty 3; hereinafter the same shall apply) stating that “Isss and women-friendly her house are located at the seat of the Gu, and the mother is waiting to kill women-friendly her knife with a knife.” was received. The 112 general situation room of the Seoul Local Police Agency directed Nonparty 3 that “Isn't have a knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.”

② Meanwhile, in the above 21:02:09 (No. 3 omitted), “A family fighting has been received,” and subparagraphs 42 and 43 of the patrol box affiliated with the Hannam Police Station that received the report was dispatched to the scene. The workers at the situation of the Southern Police Station 112 general situation room for the report in this case reported a bridge (Pol Map) and determined that the report in this case is the same as that of the report in front of the domestic violence report, and presented the opinion that “The same case as that of the domestic violence report.” In addition, the fence at the 1112 general situation room of Yongsan Police Station 13:19 patrols and 42:19 patrols and the place where the report in this case occurred are different from the reported domestic violence report in this case, and thus, they should closely examine whether the report in this case is identical to the reported domestic violence report in this case.

③ At that time, Nonparty 3 filed a report with Nonparty 21:27:22 again demanding the dispatch of police officers and received it to the 112 comprehensive situation room of the Seoul Regional Police Agency.

④ The person in charge of general situation room 112 in Yongsan Police Station 21:28:32 was the patrol car 42 and the report of this case was the same as the report of this case and the report of domestic violence was sent to ○○ △△△. However, the police officer at the 21:29:30 patrol car 42 stated the domestic violence reporter’s visit as the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△○○○○○○○○○○○○○. The current address was confirmed. The person in charge of the 112 general situation room in the Yongsan Police Station at the Yongsan Police Station 112 was required to confirm knife and the mother was waiting with knife. In addition, the reporter reported by him, and the father and the father of the son are considered to be the normal.”

⑤ The police officer No. 42 of the patrol police officer reported that the instant report and domestic violence report were separate from each other through the patrol police officer’s four times only 21:36:42, and reported that the instant report were a separate case. The patrol police officer No. 43 arrives at the scene of murder 21:40:49, but the case had already occurred.

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1-1 through 3, Gap 2-1, 2, Eul 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

Although Nonparty 3 filed the instant report with a knife and waiting for Nonparty 2 to kill Nonparty 1, Nonparty 3 presented an opinion that the instant report is the same as the earlier report of domestic violence on the ground that the reported point is similar to the earlier report of domestic violence, although Nonparty 3 was waiting for Nonparty 2 to die with a knife, and the content of the report was completed through the Yongsan Police Station 112 general situation room, Nonparty 3 presented an opinion that the instant report of this case is identical to the earlier report of this case on the ground that the reported point was similar to the earlier report of this case. In addition, Nonparty 3 pointed out that the first 12 general situation room of the Yongsan Police Station 112 is different, and that the two cases were confirmed as identical, and again requested to confirm the knife and check the existence of the knife, the police officer, who arrived at the reported site, reported two cases as identical to the report of this case. Accordingly, the police officers did not take preventive measures against the previous domestic violence case.

In the instant report and the place where domestic violence occurred in front of the instant report, two cases cannot be mistaken for the same case. However, in light of the fact that the content and address of the report are clearly different and that the person in charge of the general situation room 112 situation room in Yongsan Police Station pointed out them and requested confirmation of the same case, it is deemed that the Defendant’s police officer’s failure to take any measures to mistake the instant report as identical to the previous report case and to take any measures for the lapse of 24 minutes constitutes a case where the Defendant’s police officer breached his duties by performing official duties remarkably unreasonably due to negligence.

In addition, the report of this case reaches 24 minutes when it was not understood that it is different from the report of domestic violence. After a few minutes of the report of this case, the police officer arrived at the scene of the murder case, Nonparty 3 reported the specific contents that Nonparty 2 would attempt to kill Nonparty 1 with a knife, and Nonparty 2 would have sufficiently prevented the case if the police officer arrived at the site only before the occurrence of the murder case, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the report of this case was different from the report of this case; and (b) the police officer could have sufficiently prevented the occurrence of the murder case.

The defendant asserts that the defendant is not responsible for the defendant because the non-party 1 was murdered by the non-party 2's self-abundance of the non-party 2 and the non-party 2. However, the non-party 1 was unable to find a part of the non-party 2 as above, and the non-party 1 was not responsible for the non-party 1's murder case (However, this shall be reflected in the limitation of liability and the calculation of consolation money). The defendant asserted that the non-party 3 did not have the possibility of predicting the murder case. However, in light of the contents of the non-party 3's report as seen earlier, it cannot be viewed that there is no possibility of predictability merely because the non-party 1 was unexplo

C. Limitation on liability

The Defendant’s police officers are not easy to take part in the crime of Nonparty 2, but did not have a general supervisory duty with respect to Nonparty 2, but merely did not prevent the Defendant from committing the crime because they failed to take any action by mistake even after having received a prior report on the possibility of committing the crime of Nonparty 2. In addition, the Defendant’s liability ratio is limited to 20% by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) Nonparty 1 was found to have taken part of the efforts to fight with Nonparty 2; and (b) Nonparty 3 told Nonparty 1 in advance to fight in order to fight, even if Nonparty 1 told Nonparty 1, Nonparty 1 would have knifed with Nonparty 2 and knife with Nonparty 2.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Property damage;

(i) Actual income;

Damage equivalent to the total monetary value of the lost operating capacity of Nonparty 1 is 258,202,250 won calculated at the present price at the time of murder pursuant to the simple discount method which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12% per month based on the facts and assessment as follows:

(1) Facts recognized and evaluation details

Gender - Gender: The age of female/date of birth (date of birth omitted): 52.16 years in the event that he/she dies;

Financial assessment of operating capacity - 89,566 won per day of urban daily wages in the second half of 2015.

- Cost of living: 1/3 of income.

Maximum working age - 22th day of each month until he/she reaches 60 years of age.

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1-1's entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Calculation

– 305 months from September 12, 2015 to March 10, 2041

– 89,566 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 2/3 ¡¿ 196.57 = 258,202,250 won

2) Funeral expenses, etc.

Plaintiff 1 and 2 together with hospital expenses and funeral expenses, KRW 9,566,730 (A 6-1 through 4)

The plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2 are deemed to have been paid in 4,783,365 won.

(b) consolation money;

The amount of consolation money shall be determined as KRW 10,00,000 for the deceased non-party 1,00,000, and KRW 5,000 for the plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, taking into account the circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, such as the background of the murder incident, the plaintiffs' status relationship, and all

C. Damages of each plaintiff

1) 망 소외 1: 61,640,450원{재산손해 51,640,450원(258,202,250원×0.2)+위자료 10,000,000원}⇒원고 3, 원고 4에게 30,820,225원씩 상속

2) Plaintiffs 1 and 2: 5,956,673 won (property damage 956,673 won (property damage 4,783,365 won x 0.2) + 5,00,000 won) respectively

3) Plaintiffs 3 and 4: 35,820,225 won, respectively (30,820,225 won + 5,000,000 won, respectively)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 35,820,225 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 respectively.

Judges Yellow Hun-Ba