2013Da217672 Compensation (as stated)

A person shall be appointed.

Korea

Gwangju High Court ( Jeonju) Decision 2013Na1988 Decided November 14, 2013

March 27, 2014

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below held that, after the deceased transferred to the unit of this case, the deceased had a major reason for the accident of this case caused the accident of this case to occur. In particular, since the deceased, who attempted suicide, could have attempted suicide again within a short time, the commander and executive officers of the unit of this case have a duty to accurately ascertain the status of the deceased and prevent suicide of the deceased. The commander and executive officers of the unit of this case did not take active measures such as having the deceased receive medical treatment or receiving medical treatment from outside medical institutions even though the mental doctor and B, who are a medical doctor of this case, recommended the deceased to receive medical treatment at other medical institutions. While the doctor and executive officers, etc. of the unit of this case did not take active measures such as having the deceased receive medical treatment or receiving medical treatment from outside medical institutions during the leave period immediately before the accident of this case, the deceased's family members failed to notify his family of his opportunity to prevent the deceased from attempted suicide. As such, the deceased's fault in protecting and taking care for the deceased was caused by the deceased's suicide.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the deceased entered the Gun on February 22, 201, and entered the Gun on April 2011.

26. From around 26.0 to 16. He was transferred to the instant unit and worked as officers of the number. C commander, who is the commander of the instant unit, was reported on May 2, 201 to the effect that he was first in charge of the deceased’s activities on the same day, but was given an interview with the deceased on May 2, 201, and was her attitude of avoiding answers by the deceased, and was concentrating on the deceased for about 20 hours in the same day. The deceased was the character of pursuing a thorough and complete interview from 10 p.m., who did not know about the deceased’s work, and that he did not want to perform his duties, and that he did not want to have an interview with the deceased, who did not want to have an interview with the deceased, and that he did not want to have an interview with the deceased, and that he did not want to have an interview with the deceased, who was in charge of his duty to take care of the deceased’s work.

B. The following circumstances revealed based on the above facts, namely, the commander, executive officers, etc. of the instant unit, after becoming aware that the deceased had attempted suicide, made efforts to identify difficulties by providing counseling to the deceased and having been reduced in the work burden of the deceased, and attempted to provide treatment to the deceased through a medical doctor, who is a medical doctor, as well as a staff member selected with resources, was not under the control of his/her internal life, but under the relatively free condition of contact with his/her family members or visits to outside medical institutions; however, a medical doctor, who is a medical doctor, proposed that the deceased be provided medical care to an outside medical institution, but the mental health of the deceased aggravated to the extent that it is necessary for outside medical institutions.

In view of the fact that it appears not based on the judgment, but on the situation that the deceased refuses assistance, and that it is difficult to deem that the duties of the deceased were excessive, or that there was a factor that could cause suicide of the deceased, such as oral abuse or verbal abuse, etc., in the instant unit, it is difficult to view that the deceased was negligent in the duty to consider and protect the deceased as a superior of the deceased, on the ground that the commander or executive officer of the instant unit did not take measures to dispatch the deceased to an external medical institution for medical treatment, and did not notify the Plaintiff of the attempted suicide.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise that there was negligence on the part of the commander and executive officers of the instant unit, etc. who neglected their duty to protect and take care of the deceased. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on illegal act in the position of State compensation liability, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Gin-young