Whether damages under the State Compensation Act can be claimed under the State Compensation Act in case where a person who is eligible for military service dies in an educational sense in the military;

If the deceased was to find a compressed machine to perform his/her duties and died in an educational sense on the ground that he/she went against a person eligible for military service, then he/she cannot claim compensation for damages under the same Act because he/she constitutes a person who died on duty under the proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1600 delivered on December 23, 1980, 80Da1600 delivered on December 23, 198 (Nos. 70, 650, court bulletin No. 13515 of the State Compensation Act)

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Korea

Seoul Civil History District Court (79 Gohap3853)

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked and the plaintiffs' claim against that part shall be dismissed.

The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

The defendant ordered that the plaintiff 1 and 2 pay 22,38,806 won, 200,000 won, 100,000 won per annum from April 23, 1979 to the date of full payment, and the provisional execution order that the amount equivalent to 5 percent per annum from April 23, 1979 to the date of full payment.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant litigation performer asserts that the plaintiff's main lawsuit should be dismissed as an illegal lawsuit brought without going through a decision of compensation council under the State Compensation Act, but according to the evidence No. 9 and the evidence No. 10, the plaintiff's application for compensation to the State Compensation Council for the present accident, which was made before the conclusion of the court below's argument, can be recognized as having received a decision of rejection of the application on September 2, 1979. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is groundless.

2. Judgment on the merits

At around 08:40 on April 19, 1979, Nonparty 1, a staff member of the 23th Army Training Center for Defendant Busan-do, had Nonparty 2, a staff member of the 23th unit of the 23th unit of the 23th unit of the 12th unit of the 11th unit of the 11st unit of the said 11 unit of the said 2nd group, reported himself to Nonparty 2, a superior of the 12th unit of the 12th unit of the 2nd unit of the 12th unit of the 12th unit of the 2nd unit of the 23th unit of the 23th unit of the 23th unit of the 1979 unit of the 7th unit of the 20th unit of the 2nd unit of the 23th unit of the 23th unit of the 1979 unit of the 2nd unit of the said group of the 2nd unit

The plaintiff's attorney is due to the tort committed by the non-party 1, who is a public official, and the defendant asserts that he is responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above accident under the State Compensation Act, and according to the above facts of recognition, the deceased non-party 2 caused the compression to find a compressed machine to perform his duties and caused the death of the deceased non-party 1, who is a military employee, in educational sense within the territory of the Dong on the ground that the non-party 1, who is a military employee, caused the death. This is the case where the above deceased was abused in relation to his duties and died therefrom. Thus, the death of the deceased constitutes a case where the above deceased becomes a public official who died on duty under the proviso of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, and thus, the plaintiffs cannot claim compensation under the State Compensation Act, such as the Military Pension Act.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in the principal lawsuit shall be dismissed because there is no longer need to determine the remaining points. Accordingly, the original judgment which has different conclusions is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is reasonable, so the part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked and the plaintiffs' claims in respect of that part shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to

Judges Lee E-hee (Presiding Judge)