구상금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the statement in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff asserts the liability under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act that the Defendant is the owner of the instant vehicle and the instant accident occurred while using the instant vehicle in accordance with its purpose, and thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is liable for the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “Voluntary Act”).
According to the main text of Article 3 and subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Act, the term "operation" means the use or management of a motor vehicle according to its usage, regardless of whether or not a person or an article is transported. The term "use of a motor vehicle according to its usage" means the use of various devices installed according to its structure according to the purpose of the motor vehicle for each device.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da9294, 9300 Decided May 28, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, the instant vehicle was installed as a combination of “Skiex”, unlike its original purpose, and the instant accident occurred while oiling pseudo petroleum products using equipment such as the aforementioned pumps.
Therefore, the instant accident cannot be deemed to have occurred due to “operation” under the Private Ship Act.
In addition, Article 3 of the Aggravated Punishment Act does not apply to the case of death or injury of another person, i.e., human damage and physical damage.
The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that human damage occurred due to the instant accident.