[손해배상][집14(3)민,185]
(1) An act in the line of duty of a public official
If a driver who has been placed at the workplace causes a flag while drinking alcohol while leaving the workplace without permission by the recommendation of the head of the affiliated unit, he/she shall not be deemed to be an act of driving within the scope of the act of duties.
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act
Plaintiff
Countries
Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1377 delivered on June 8, 1966, Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1377 delivered on July 8, 196
The part of the defendant's complaint among the original judgment shall be reversed.
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s litigant;
According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the non-party 1, who belongs to the 1205 Army Corporation of the defendant, was a driver of the compact press, with the order of the chief of the maintenance division, to be engaged in the acquisition of alcoholic beverages from November 15, 1962 to the Quarrying for the construction of the 1st Army Hospital, which was installed in the river in the vicinity of the Gyeongbuk-do, from November 16, 1962, at the recommendation of the non-party 2, who is the incidental unit of the Dong on November 16, 1962, was on the above vehicle without a legitimate procedure, such as the non-party 2's names of the victim, the non-party 1, the driver, and the victim non-party 1, the non-party 1, at the above 2K house and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was the victim, was in a limited speed of 10 meters during the 2nd of the death of the plaintiff.
Thus, in the above case, it is reasonable to interpret the so-called victim off-the-victim or the plaintiff, the above mentioned above, that the public official cannot claim damages under the State Compensation Act as an act closely related to the performance of his duties or as an act closely related to the performance of his duties. However, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of the State Compensation Act that accepted part of the plaintiff's claim because the public official's act of operation in the above case falls within the scope of his duties from an objective perspective. Thus, the part against the defendant in the original judgment should be reversed as unjust.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge)