The meaning of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act when the life or body of another person is injured due to the operation thereof.

When a person's life or body is killed due to the operation of a motor vehicle means the use of all the elements of the motor vehicle, i.e., the motor vehicle's device, that is not only the motor, but also all the elements of the motor vehicle, such as the window and body-off space, in accordance with the directions that contribute to the transport of passengers, directly or indirectly, and the use of all the equipment, including the bus inside the window and body-off space, is ordinarily a cause of the idea of the passengers. In determining the causal relationship, if there is any defect or defect of the equipment that must be considered

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da80 delivered on May 28, 1974 (Article 3 (10) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 490 of the Court Official Gazette, Article 750 of the Civil Code)

Han Passenger Transport Corporation

Korea Automobile Insurance Corporation

Busan District Court (78 Gohap1460)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff money at the rate of 35,398,180 won and the annual rate of 5 percent from the next day of service ( October 7, 1978) to the next day of service to the second day.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

Since the plaintiff's 1, 2, and 6 testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony of the non-party 1 and the fact that the non-party 2 had no dispute over the establishment of the bus, the plaintiff is a company aimed at carrying on automobile accident insurance, etc. based on the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the plaintiff was a registered titleholder of the non-party 2's automobile accident compensation insurance, including the "b", and the plaintiff and the defendant were liable to compensate the non-party 3's life and body by using the non-party 4's bus's remaining strings for the non-party 2's remaining strings and 0's remaining 4's remaining strings and remaining 2's remaining strings and remaining 2's remaining 2's remaining strings and remaining 3's remaining 2's remaining strings and remaining 1's remaining 2's remaining strings.

Therefore, according to Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 1 of the above-mentioned common bus accident compensation law, the plaintiff's act of operating the above-mentioned common bus with the reason that the above-mentioned accident occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant's accident compensation insurance money, i.e., the plaintiff's life or body was caused by the operation of the plaintiff's automobile and the plaintiff's liability for damages, the above operation of the automobile is limited to the time when the plaintiff's operation of the bus was caused by the accident, i.e., the operation of the bus, i., its own equipment, etc., the accident caused the accident to cause the accident and the accident caused the death or injury of the plaintiff, and the Guarantee Act, which has accepted the provisions of Article 1 of the above insurance clauses, established a system to guarantee damages for the accident of the plaintiff's body and the accident caused the death or injury of the plaintiff's body as well as the accident caused by the death or injury of the plaintiff's vehicle.

Furthermore, according to Article 5(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9032 of May 26, 1978), an insurance company is responsible for paying the insurance amount to be paid to the injured person as stated in Table 1 of the above Enforcement Decree according to the supply of the injury if the injured person was killed or injured, as stated in the above Table 1, and for paying the total amount of the above amount if the injured person died due to the cause of the injury during the medical treatment. Meanwhile, as stated in the above Table 2-1 through 15, evidence No. 9, evidence No. 3-1 through 24, evidence No. 4-1 through 45, evidence No. 1 through 37, evidence No. 1 through 37, evidence No. 5-1 through 37, evidence No. 16, 17, 197, and list No. 2, the plaintiff's testimony and evidence No. 14, and the above evidence No. 2.

However, since non-party 15, such as the victim injured, etc., falls short of 4,5 percent of the body list because the injury classification as recorded in the above list No. 2 is not class 4, 8, but class 9, and the amount of the insurance money is 140,000 won because the injury classification falls under the above list No. 2 list No. 4, and the injury classification falls under the victim No. 9. 11, and the injury classification falls under the above list No. 8, and the injury classification falls under the above list No. 11, No. 4, 200 won, and the injury classification falls under the above list No. 11, and the injury classification falls under the above list No. 11, No. 4-1 and No. 2, and each of the above items No. 2 can be determined based on the evidence that the defendant's opinion did not have any other evidence that the defendant's opinion did not have any other evidence as to each of the above items No. 2. 3. 2.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 35,258,180, which is the sum of the amounts in the claim column of the attached list Nos. 1 and 2, and the damages for delay in civil law in accordance with the annual rate of 5% from October 7, 1978 to the full payment. The plaintiff's claim for delay is justified within the scope of the above recognition and the remainder is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the decision is delivered as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of appeal costs.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge)