[손해배상][공1988.11.1.(835),1320]
The meaning of "using an automobile in accordance with the usage of the equipment concerned" under Article 2 (2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;
For the purpose of subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the term “the use of an automobile in conformity with the usage of the device concerned” means the use of various devices installed according to the purpose of the automobile for each purpose.
Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act
Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and full-time injuryon.
Dongyang Transport Co., Ltd., Ltd., Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorneys Han-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Gwangju High Court Decision 85Na235 delivered on September 17, 1986
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of an appeal shall be borne by each party.
1. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant’s attorney
The phrase "the use of an automobile in accordance with the usage of the equipment" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act refers to the use of various devices installed according to the purpose of the automobile, and "the use of the equipment in accordance with the usage" means the use of the above various devices according to the purpose of the equipment. Thus, in the factual relations stated by the court below, the accident of this case cannot be deemed to have occurred due to the operation of the automobile under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and therefore there is no error of law in the judgment below that recognized the defendant's liability under the same provision. However, although the court below erred by the negligence of the defendant, and there is a proximate causal relation between the negligence of the defendant's driver and the victim's death, and therefore, the judgment below's illegality cannot be viewed as a violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, it cannot be accepted.
2. As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney:
The court below's finding that the evidence preparation and fact-finding conducted to determine that the income of the deceased non-party during the accident of this case was the amount of its instruction does not constitute an error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.
3. Ultimately, each of the above arguments is without merit, and all of these appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)