[구상금청구사건][고집1980민(1),172]
Requirements for indemnity to public officials who are drivers of the State or local governments who compensate for the damages under the Automobile Compensation Guarantee Act.
In case where the state or local government compensates for damages under the Act on the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation that takes precedence over the State Compensation Act, the requirement of Article 2(2) of the State Compensation Act is required to exercise the right to indemnity against public officials who are drivers.
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act
Sungnam-si
Defendant
Seoul District Court Branch of the Seoul District Court (77Gahap 899 decided Feb. 2, 199)
The appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,967,934 won with 5% interest per annum from February 17, 1978 to the date of full payment.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
According to the records of the first instance trial, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (Each Judgment), Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 2-2, 2-3 (each disbursement decision) and the defendant, who was a cleaning driver of the plaintiff (vehicle number omitted) on February 6, 197, was driving the above vehicle to the north-dong of the same city on February 7, 197 for the removal of garbage, at approximately 7:0, 100, the defendant was driving the vehicle at approximately 7:0, 700, 15 meters away from 7:0, 70, 700, 700, 15 meters away from 7:5,00,000, 7,0000, 7,0000, 7,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000.
First, as acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff claims for damages caused by the Defendant’s tort against the Nonparty under the Act on the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation, which excludes the application of the State Compensation Act (the application of the above Act to Nonparty 2, etc.). Thus, the application of Article 2(2) of the State Compensation Act to the Defendant is excluded, and the right to indemnity should be exercised to the Defendant under Article 756(3) of the Civil Act. Thus, the right to indemnity against the employee under Article 756(3) of the Civil Act should be exercised under the premise that the employer compensates a third party for damages caused by the tort committed by the employee under Article 756(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, which is not a public official of the State or local government, under the premise that the State or local government is not a public official of the State Compensation Act established under Article 26(2) of the Constitution to compensate for damages under the premise that the State or local government is not a public official of the State’s private law to which the State or local government belongs to an employer-employee relationship.
Next, since the Plaintiff was grossly negligent on the part of the Defendant regarding the occurrence of the instant accident that caused the death of the deceased Nonparty 1, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the State Compensation Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 2,967,934 that the Plaintiff paid to the Nonparty pursuant to the provision of Article 2(2) of the State Compensation Act. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was grossly negligent on the part of the Defendant in light of the circumstances surrounding the instant accident, and there is no evidence to deem the instant accident as the Defendant’
Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same result shall be justified, and the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party and so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Yoon Jin-young (Presiding Judge)