[손해배상][집15(3)민,070]
Liability to compensate in cases where an accident caused by the operation of a vehicle without the consent of the commander is objectively related to the performance of duty.
In the event of an accident during the operation of a military vehicle, the date of the accident was a legal holiday, and the approval of the commander was not required for the operation of the vehicle, and even if the purpose of the vehicle operation was not only for the dead amusement of soldiers in the operation branch, if the vehicle operation was objectively related to the performance of military service by soldiers in active duty service, it should be recognized as a compensation obligation under this law for the civilian's thought caused by the accident in operation.
Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act
Plaintiff 1 and five others
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1870 delivered on June 13, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1870 delivered on June 13, 1967
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the prosecutor of the appellate court are examined.
The judgment of the court below that it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to non-party 2's death and duty to compensate for the injury of the plaintiff 2 and non-party 2, even though the non-party 1, who was a public holiday of October 10, 1965, the day of the accident, was a public holiday of the 28th Army and operated the 28th Army, and the non-party 1, who was a driver of the 28th Army. The non-party 1, who was a private driver, was driving the 7 soldiers belonging to the above association, started driving the 7 soldiers belonging to the above association and was playing on the flusium, and the accident occurred during the flusium. Thus, it did not affect the judgment of the court below that the non-party 2's duty to compensate for the death of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who did not have any influence on the defendant's duty to compensate for the injury caused by the accident.
Therefore, since we cannot accept the argument of the theory of the above point, we decide in accordance with the consistent opinion of all participating judges, the decision is made in accordance with Articles 400 and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)