[손해배상][공1981.5.15.(656),13839]
Whether the “accident” under Article 761(2) of the Civil Act includes any danger created by the perpetrator.
"Urgent danger" as stipulated in Article 761 (2) of the Civil Act does not include any danger created by the perpetrator's intentional or negligent act.
Article 761(2) of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 74Da1487 Delivered on August 19, 1975
The plaintiff (1), (2), and (3) is a minor, and the legal representative is the representative of a person with parental authority.
Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of Busan Metropolitan City
Daegu High Court Decision 80Na246 delivered on May 23, 1980
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
With respect to No. 1:
Of the requirements for emergency evacuation stipulated in Article 761(2) of the Civil Act, it is reasonable to view that the danger caused by the perpetrator’s intentional or negligent act is not included (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da1487, Aug. 19, 1975). According to the facts established by the court below, the accident of this case is as follows. In other words, Nonparty 1, a cleaning driver owned by the defendant, was making a stop for about four minutes in front of the coercion business in Busan East-gu, Busan, without taking necessary measures to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle, even though he did not take necessary measures to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle without being able to take necessary measures to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle without being able to take necessary measures to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle, as he did not start the operation of the vehicle without being able to stop at least 15 minutes of the vehicle, and the above vehicle is a vehicle with the air brake, which is operated without being able to take necessary measures to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle.
With respect to the second ground:
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the above defendant's assertion on the defendant's assertion that the above pollution recovery is being considered in determining the amount of compensation for damages, on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that the above pollution recovery was neglected in the front of the above vehicle's course, and that the accident of this case occurred by the non-party 1's negligence, the driver of the above vehicle, as stated in its holding, although examining the records, the above fact finding by the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to negligence or comparative negligence. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence of the victim. The argument is groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)