In case of national compensation, the driver's negligence can not be recognized as the tortfeasor's negligence;

In the event that an accident occurred as a result of continuous operation without hearing the "Stosaw" of a person who gets loaded under the circumstances of a disturbance, the driver shall not be deemed to be negligent for the driver.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Countries

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na180 decided August 11, 1966, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na180 decided August 11, 1966

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil District Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined;

The judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment. The non-party 1 was the driver's disease of the above 21/2 ton of the vehicle belonging to the non-party 1 who was on duty of the 13th century, and the non-party 2 knew that the non-party 1 was on duty of care in the above 1/30 on July 1, 1965, and that the non-party 2 was on duty of care in believing that the non-party 1 was on duty of care in driving the vehicle, and that the non-party 2 knew that the non-party 1 was on duty of care in driving the vehicle due to the non-party 1's negligence, and that the non-party 2 knew that the non-party 1 was on duty of care in driving the vehicle, and that the non-party 2 knew that the non-party 1 was on duty of care in driving the vehicle due to the non-party 2's negligence in loading the above vehicle, and that the non-party 2 was on duty of care in driving the vehicle.

However, according to the above facts of recognition of the judgment and the evidence No. 5.6 of the above judgment, at the time of the accident, about 15 civilian persons demanded to wear this vehicle toward both sides at the time of the accident, and therefore, it cannot be said that the above driver's disease was negligent in failing to hear the sound of the victim. In addition, it cannot be said that the driver's disease was loaded on the vehicle, but it cannot be said that there was negligence because the driver's negligence was not confirmed before the point where the driver was to load the person, but it cannot be said that there was negligence because the driver's negligence was not found before the departure of the point where the driver was to load the person, as seen above. Thus, it cannot be said that the judgment was erroneous in recognizing the negligence of the above driver's disease as seen above, and the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed.

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro