[손해배상(자)청구사건][하집1987(3),271]
Cases which cannot be regarded as a person operating an automobile for himself as prescribed in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.
In the event of an accident, the company's operator is divided into the steering and loading of wing trucks exclusively used for the transportation of materials without the permission of the officer of the site office, etc., and the company is not a person who operates an automobile for himself/herself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, at the active request of the victim, who is an electrical plant belonging to the same company, who directs major on a holiday where the operator takes charge of the electrical construction at the construction site and takes charge of the main duties.
Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act
Supreme Court Decision 80Da2720 Decided February 10, 1981 (Gong794No228 Decided December 23, 1986, Article 2 (59) of the State Compensation Act, Article 2 (59), Article 2 (147 of the State Compensation Act, No. 653, No. 13679)
Plaintiff 1 and three others
South Korea Electric Power Company
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 an amount of KRW 1,00,000, KRW 23,500,000 for each of them, KRW 23,000 for the plaintiff 4, and KRW 23,00,000 for each of them, and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from October 5, 1986 to the date of full payment.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
In light of the following: (a) No. 2 (Motor Vehicle Register); (b) No. 3 (Motor Vehicle Accident Certificate); (c) No. 7; (d) No. 1-2 (Protocol of Indictment); (c) No. 1-2 (Protocol of Protocol 1; (d) No. 6 (Protocol of Examination of Witnesses); and (e) testimony and oral argument of the Defendant Company; (d) Non-Party 1, a driver of the Defendant Company, was employed at the above construction site; (e) No. 15:0 on Oct. 15, 1986; and (e) Non-Party 2, the Defendant Company, who was affiliated with the Defendant Company, used the above construction site for transportation of the Defendant Company’s 7Ma4317; and (e) Non-Party 2, the Defendant Company, who was affiliated with the Defendant Company’s office, was on the front side of the construction site; and (e) Non-Party 1, who was on the front side of the construction site, did not use the above construction site without permission from the Defendant Company’s office.
However, the plaintiffs' attorney asserted that the defendant is a person operating an automobile for his own sake as prescribed by the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, or as the user of the non-party 1, the non-party 2 is responsible for compensating for the damage incurred due to the death of the non-party 2 due to the operation of the above automobile, as prescribed by the Civil Act. The defendant's attorney argues that the non-party 1's above truck operation is not related to the defendant company's business, but is not related to the defendant company's business, and that it was done without the consent of the defendant company's active request by
According to the above facts, even if the above truck is a vehicle owned by the defendant and the non-party 1 is an employee of the defendant company as the driver of the above truck at the time of the above accident, the operation of the above truck at the time of the above accident is deemed to be an unauthorized operation of the whole factory of the defendant company at the request of the above deceased, who is an entire factory of the defendant company, regardless of the above field work of the defendant company. Thus, in light of the above vehicle operation circumstances and the status and operation purpose of the above defendant company's above construction site, it is difficult to see the above operation as an automobile operation for the defendant under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and it is difficult to see it as an automobile operation for the defendant under the same Act. In addition, the non-party 1's above truck operation is not the execution of the defendant company's business, and therefore it seems that the above deceased was well aware of the fact that
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case, which is premised on the defendant's liability for damages against the above accident, is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party.
Judges Kim Chang-song (Presiding Judge)