[구상금][집28(2)민,211;공1980.10.1.(641),13085]
The meaning of the device and operation prescribed in Article 2 (2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;
In addition to the direct cause of a fire in a bus, gasoline has been fluored due to the cresh of gasoline through the bus engine, and the lighting equipment of the bus was inappropriate for the passengers to search for the belongings of the passengers, and the structure of the bus was inappropriate for the evacuation of the passengers, such as the entrance, and it was an indirect cause of the fire, if the fire occurred indirectly, this would result from the use of the above equipment of the bus in accordance with its usage. Therefore, the fire accident was caused by the operation of the bus, and the bus owner should be held liable for damages to the passengers as prescribed in Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Security Act.
Article 2 (2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act
Han Passenger Transport Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant
[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd.
Daegu High Court Decision 79Na683 delivered on March 12, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney are examined.
The court below held that the fire in the bus in this case occurred as the main cause of the act of riding the gasoline of passengers and the act of riding the shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot and it was not proper to find the lighting-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-s and other circumstances inappropriate for passengers' possession of the above lighting-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-s.
The second ground of appeal is examined.
There is no argument that the court below rejected the part concerning the provision of the injury classification for the victims of the injuries in this case, which the court below recognized by the adopted evidence material, that the court below rejected the part concerning the injury payment for the victims of the injury to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, which is inconsistent with the above recognition from among the parts of the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2, and that there is a violation
The grounds of appeal No. 3 and supplementary grounds of appeal are examined.
However, considering Article 1 and Article 4 of the General Insurance Clause for Accident Compensation Insurance No. 1-2 of the No. 1-2 of the No. 1-2 of the No. 1-2 of the accident compensation insurance, it is required to refer to the compensation to be paid by the plaintiff as the damages that the plaintiff would be liable for damages, which is, that is, it is not the purport of the compensation to be paid as part of the reality. Therefore, it is justifiable that the court below accepted the maximum amount of the accident compensation insurance for the sum of the amounts scheduled to be paid by the plaintiff in addition to the amounts already paid by the plaintiff as compensation according to the respective injury supply of the victims recognized by the adopted evidences as the same purport of the judgment below, and it is not illegal in violation of the relevant provisions of the Guarantee
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Yoon-ho (Presiding Justice)