(a) The meaning of “those used according to the usage of the equipment concerned” as prescribed in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

(b) The case holding that an accident occurred due to the operation of a motor vehicle by an injury sustained by another person on the ground, where the other person, who was listed in the bluring and loaded in the ground, is not an accident, on the wind where the burgs installed across the ground and the burging of the burgs are removed due to the shocking of the

A. According to Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the term "operation" means the use of a motor vehicle according to the usage of the device, regardless of whether a person or article is transported. The term "motor vehicle" means a device continuously fixed to a motor vehicle that is distinguished from a driver, a passenger, or a cargo, and is equipped with the structure of the motor vehicle. The whole or part of various devices are used for each intended purpose.

(b) The case holding that the injury suffered from the operation of a motor vehicle is not an accident due to the operation of the motor vehicle by another person, which has been loaded and loaded on the ground, on the wind which has been set up across the ground and the post-loads, due to the shocking of the boom trees on the cargo vehicle;

Articles 3 and 2 subparag. 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Da904 Decided August 12, 1980 (Gong1980, 13085) 86Da2270 Decided September 27, 198 (Gong1988, 1320)

[Defendant-Appellant] Han Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na4646 delivered on January 16, 1992

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the main sentence of Article 3 and Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, when a person who operates an automobile for his own sake dies or injures another person due to the operation of the automobile, and the term "operation" refers to the use of the automobile in accordance with the usage of the vehicle concerned regardless of whether the person or the article is transported, regardless of whether the person or the article is transported. The term "the device" as referred to in the above Article means the device continuously fixed to the automobile in question, which is distinguishable from the driver, the passenger or the cargo, and is equipped with the unique device installed in the automobile in its structure, and all or part of the various devices are used according to their respective intended use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da904, Aug. 12, 1980; 86Meu2270, Sept. 27, 1988).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the content that the insurance period as to freight vehicles (vehicle registration number omitted) owned by the Defendant shall be from September 23, 1990 to September 23, 191; (b) the Plaintiff shall be liable for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act due to the operation of the said vehicle; and (c) the Plaintiff shall be liable for damages due to the Defendant’s loss of, damage to, or damage to, another person’s property; and (d) around February 16:00, 191, the Defendant’s act of loading the said vehicle after stopping and loading the said vehicle on the ground and after loading the said vehicle, including the Nonparty’s act of removing the above cargo from the vehicle’s surface, which was installed under the Act on the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation, to the extent that the vehicle was separated from the above vehicle’s surface or vibration, and thus, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s act of loading the said vehicle was separated from the vehicle’s surface.

The court below's finding that the accident situation of this case is included in the operation prescribed by the same Act is just in light of the above legal principles.

However, the person who operates a motor vehicle is not liable for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act for all accidents that occur during the operation of the motor vehicle, but liable for only those accidents caused by the operation among them. Thus, as determined by the court below, the above accident cannot be said to have occurred due to the operation of the motor vehicle in this case, since it is not the device continuously fixed to the motor vehicle, unless the accident in this case occurred on the wind that the shot board installed as above is separated from the motor vehicle, and the shot board installed as above was separated from the motor vehicle, and the use of the fixed device corresponding to the corresponding device under the same Act was not caused by the operation of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the accident of this case was caused by the operation of the above automobile, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the concept of "operation" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Therefore, the argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)