Whether there exists competition between the Military Security Compensation and the Compensation under the State Compensation Act in the claim for damages against a soldier who died in the course of performing his duties.

In the claim for damages against a soldier who died during the performance of his duties, the compensation for military assistance and the compensation for damages under the State Compensation Act are concurrent in accordance with the legal principles on compensation for damages.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 18 of the Military Aid Benefits Act

Plaintiff

Countries

Seoul Civil Area, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na721 delivered on September 28, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the facts established by the court below, since the non-party 1 died due to the non-party 2's negligence during the performance of official duties, since the deceased non-party 1 died during the performance of official duties, the defendant's Military Aid Compensation Act and the Military Aid Benefits Act will be the source of responsibility for the protection and compensation under the defendant's Compensation Act, and that it was an accident due to the non-party 2's negligence in the performance of official duties, the above two responsibility should be the defendant's raw milk under the defendant's Compensation Act. The former aims to protect the victim and compensate for their sacrifice, and the latter aims to compensate the entire amount of the damage. However, according to the legal principles on compensation for damages, the latter differs from the compensation portion for the former, at least from the compensation portion for the damage, and the latter's liability for compensation is concurrent to the defendant's assertion that the victim's bereaved family members did not have any provision on compensation for the above part of the compensation amount due to an accident in the Military Aid Benefits Act and the Military Aid Benefits Act, and thus, the defendant's liability for the defendant's specific assertion of the defendant's liability under the State Compensation Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court