The Si, Do Police Officers operated a bus for the purpose of having the police officers attend the service, and the police duties are delegated by the State. Therefore, in this case, the State is the owner of the above vehicle, who operates the motor vehicle for itself.

The Si, Do Police Officers operated a bus for the purpose of having the police officers attend the service, and the police duties are delegated by the State. Therefore, in this case, the State is the owner of the above vehicle, who operates the motor vehicle for itself.

Article 2(3) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 3(2) of the Government Organization Act, Article 102 of the Local Autonomy Act

Kim decoration et al.

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na3179 delivered on October 27, 1971, Seoul High Court Decision 70Na3179 delivered on October 27, 1971

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

The judgment of the court below is justified in finding the facts that the non-party, who is the police officer of the Busan City Police Bureau under the jurisdiction of the defendant For the purpose of attending the above police station's office, is a transit bus belonging to the police station's home country, and the police office is delegated by the State, and the above operation of the motor vehicle is also included in the police service. The court below held the defendant as the owner of the above motor vehicle, and there is no reason to argue that the local government act is erroneous on the premise that the court below merely recognized the defendant as the owner of the motor vehicle, and there is a wrong interpretation of the Local Autonomy Act.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the accident of this case was due to the negligence in driving the motor vehicle of the non-party Doman, who is the police officer of the above Busan City. The plaintiffs' claim under the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act is clear by the record of the complaint, and thus, the court below's action which led to the above claim is justified and it was erroneous in the incomplete hearing due to the non-exercise of the right to request the above explanation. If the following facts are the same as above, the court below held that the non-party Do governor, who was the above non-party Do governor, was the state public official of the defendant, and the above non-party Do governor as to the liability for damages caused by the accident, was in the status of the quasi-joint and several liability obligor. Therefore, even if the above Do governor delivered 70,000 won to the plaintiff Kim Jong-hun, the victim of this case, and agreed not to claim damages caused by the accident, and therefore, the plaintiff did not affect the defendant and the plaintiffs, and therefore, the court's decision is justified and justified.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)