[손해배상등][집16(2)민,095]
Cases that can not be recognized as an act committed by a perpetrator due to the performance of official duties;
If a military driver's disease carries the victim who is the sergeant of the military driver's office, as the person to whom he/she belongs, in accordance with the direction of the commander of the army, he/she takes the victim to the school playground where he/she exercises the child of the commander, and again, upon the request of the assistant principal of the school, he/she shall not be deemed to have caused a traffic accident due to his/her performance of official duties if he/she causes an accident.
Article 2 of the former State Compensation Act
Plaintiff 1 and 10 others
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 67Na191 delivered on February 14, 1968
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
We examine the Plaintiffs’ agent’ grounds of appeal.
The facts determined by the court below are as follows. On September 28, 1965, Nonparty 1: (a) was on board the 11th KFF No. 106; (b) was on duty as a driver of the 11th KFF; (c) was on duty as an inspector; (d) was on duty as an inspector, Nonparty 2 was on duty as an inspector; (e) was on duty as an inspector; (e) was on duty as an inspector; and (e) was on duty as an inspector on the same day; and (e) was on duty as an assistant principal of the 11st KFG No. 106; and (e) was on duty as an inspector of the 11st KFF No. 106; and (e) was on duty as an inspector of the 1st KFF 2nd 100; and (e) was on duty as an inspector of the 1st KFF 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3rd 3rd 2.
The only written evidence No. 1 (Investigation Report) does not depend on the above conclusion. Moreover, the court below’s determination that the vehicle that caused the accident was not a vehicle dispatched by the Gun for the purpose of supporting the people in this case without Nonparty 5’s testimony and that the vehicle that caused the accident was not a vehicle dispatched by the Gun for the purpose of supporting the people in this case does not have any unlawful ground for review of the record. In short, the court below did not err in its interpretation of the law, or there is no violation of the rules of evidence by misunderstanding the legal principles as to
Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and all of its dismissal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.
This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.
The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet