With the knowledge that the military vehicle is operated as a non-applicable military unit, the victim's right to claim compensation after increasing the military vehicle, who suffered an accident.

The non-party 3, who is the victim, can recognize the fact that he was aboard a military vehicle with the knowledge of the fact that he was operating the military vehicle by private application, so the victim also participated in the illegal operation of the vehicle. Therefore, the damage caused by this can not be claimed against the defendant.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

67Da1395 decided Sep. 19, 1967 (Kakadd 2066; Supreme Court Decision 15Noh 111 decided Oct. 11, 196; Decision 2(83)672 of the State Compensation Act)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (65 Ghana12638) in the first instance trial

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1395 Decided September 19, 1967

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

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The plaintiff et al. shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 568,304 won with an annual rate of 5% from September 11, 1965 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The defendant shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1 was a person who worked for the non-party 3 driver's office of the 505 Army head, and the non-party 1 was the non-party 3 driver's office of the 5th Army head, and the non-party 1 was the non-party 3 driver's office of the 1st century, and the non-party 2 was the non-party 3 driver's office of the 1st century, and the non-party 1 was the non-party 3 driver's office of the non-party 1's office and the non-party 3 driver's office's office of the non-party 1 was the non-party 2's office's office's non-party 2's non-party 1's office's non-party 3 driver's office's office's non-party 1's office's non-party 1's non-party 2's office's non-party 3's office's office's non-party 1's office'.

In the same way, since Nonparty 1’s driver’s disease, who is a public official, caused Nonparty 3, the victim during the performance of official duties, the claim against the Plaintiff, etc., based on the premise that there is the right to claim damages under the State Compensation Act against the Defendant, is clear that it is unnecessary to decide on the remaining issues, and thus, it is unreasonable to accept the claim of the Plaintiff, etc., as a different opinion, and the original judgment accepting the claim of the Plaintiff, etc., as one copy of the original judgment is unfair, and the Defendant’s appeal is revoked with due reason, and is so decided as per Disposition under Articles 386, 96,

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)