[손해배상(자)][공1992.1.1.(911),99]
The case recognizing the liability of the State for damages in case where any civilian died of a traffic accident that occurred while he was on a public holiday and was on duty to return to a military personnel's and recreational center on the military service on dispatch at night.
In the case where any traffic accident occurred while any civilian was on a public holiday and on duty together with a large-scale commander having been on duty at night, the case recognizing the liability of the State for compensation on the ground that the driving of the above large-scale commander residing in barracks cannot be said to have been exempted from military control or duties, since he/she was killed in a traffic accident that occurred while he/she was on duty to return to the military recreation center.
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act
Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 90Na43751 delivered on May 16, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s litigation performer.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the non-party 1, who was the driver of the military unit as shown in the judgment of the court below on July 17, 1989, was sent by the non-party 1, who was the driver of the military unit as indicated in the judgment of the court below by macrofics, etc., at the time of the above military branch on July 20:30, 1989, the court below recognized the fact that the non-party 1 caused the death of the non-party 3, who was on the back of the above branch line as stated in the judgment of the court below, due to the reasons that the non-party 1, who was a driver of the military unit as indicated in the judgment of the court below, was on the back of the branch line, and was on the part of the non-party 1, who was a public official belonging to the above non-party 1, due to the above fact that the non-party 1, who was on the duty of the deceased, caused the death of the non-party 1.
In light of the records, the above recognition by the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as argued by the theory of the lawsuit, and the circumstances of the accident are the same as the above finalized facts by the court below, and in this case where the above non-party 1 did not recognize that the speed was reduced and stopped rapidly due to the occurrence of danger or other unavoidable reasons, the above judgment by the court below is acceptable in light of the purport of Article 17 (3) of the Road Traffic Act where the rapid suspension or reduction of speed is prohibited except for the case of prevention of danger and other unavoidable circumstances, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to joint tort as pointed out by the theory of the above judgment by the court below.
In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the above deceased non-party 3 was found to have been involved in the accident of this case while visiting the above non-party 2, who was dispatched to the above military's resort center after completing a marriage ceremony with the above non-party 4, who was on duty with the above non-party 2 and the non-party 4, who was on duty in the military's resort center, and going out as the above non-party 2 and the above non-party 2, who was on duty in the military's resort. Thus, even if the non-party 1, who was prohibited from boarding the military on the public holiday, was on duty of the military, he cannot be deemed to have operated the above franch as a driver of the large-unit's office at the time of this case, and the case where the party members pointed out by the theory of the lawsuit, are different from the case, and therefore, it is not a proper precedent in this case.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)