[손해배상][집16(3)민,086]
Cases where a victim who was on board a military vehicle cannot be deemed to be negligent;
As long as it was true that a civilian issued an instruction to the effect that the driver’s family members and the general public are invalid after the completion of work for the soldiers, even if the instruction was contrary to the instruction, it cannot be said that the civilian, who was aware of it, was negligent by the plaintiff, on the ground that it was against the instruction.
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act
Plaintiff
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2345 delivered on July 4, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2345 delivered on July 4, 1968
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.
As established in the judgment of the court below at the time of the accident, since the Army Headquarters, the office of the vehicle involved in the accident, ordered the driver's office of the vehicle involved in the accident, after completing work on the part of the military personnel, to the effect that the military personnel's family members as well as the general civilians are not allowed, it cannot be said that the defendant's assertion of the plaintiff (the wife of the non-party in the Army of the Army of the Army of the Army of the Army of the Army of the Republic of Korea) who was taken aboard the vehicle involved in the accident, was negligent, even if the order was in violation of the instruction as argued by the plaintiff, the civilian, who was aware of the above instruction and was taken on the part of the vehicle involved in the accident, could not be considered to have been negligent, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges, as per Disposition under Articles 400, 384, 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)