Whether the engine displacement 49.6cc. is a motor vehicle under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

The liability for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall apply only to cases where the damage is caused by the operation of the "automobile", and according to the provisions of Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 3 of the Automobile Management Act, and Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the accident caused by the operation of the vehicle 49.6cc occ occ occ occ occ occ occ occ occ occ occ occ occ occ occ n.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 92Na1112 delivered on February 17, 1993

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party, who is an employee of the defendant, was unable to discover the victim who was walking prior to the judgment at around 21:00 on September 18, 1991 while driving a 49.6C Hand-2 Hand-fabab on around 21:00 on September 18, 1991, and caused the injury to the Dong by shocking the above oba in front part, and the defendant purchased the above Obaba on August 191 and provided the above Oba to the above non-party, etc., who was accommodated in the disciplinary action for the defendant's management, for use at the time of drinking or going out of the restaurant, and determined that according to the above recognized facts, the defendant is liable for compensation for the damage suffered by the victim due to the above accident.

However, the liability of compensation under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall apply only when the damage is caused by the operation of the "automobile". Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act provides that the "automobile" means the automobile subject to the Automobile Management Act and the heavy machinery as prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the heavy machinery subject to the Automobile Management Act. Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Automobile Management Act provides that the "automobile" means an automobile manufactured for the purpose of movement on land by an engine or an instrument manufactured for the purpose of movement on land by being towed and manufactured for the purpose of movement on land. Article 3 of the same Act provides that the types of automobiles shall be classified into passenger automobiles, bus, truck, special automobile, and two wheeled automobile. The classification of the automobiles shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Traffic based on the size, structure, type of engine, total quantity of engine displacement or rated output. Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act defines two wheeled automobile and excludes it from those of less than 50 cc engine displacement or power of less than 50 kw.

According to the court below's duly admitted, since the engine displacement of the accident of this case is recognized as 49.6cc., it is clear that the accident of this case does not fall under two wheeled Motor Vehicles under the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act, and the accident of this case does not fall under the scope of accident due to operation of "motor vehicle to which Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act applies".

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant is liable for damages caused by the above accident on the premise that the automobile is included in the scope of the automobile covered by the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of automobile under the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act. Meanwhile, the court below should have deliberated on whether the above non-party's negligence, who is an employee of the defendant, is liable for the employer's liability under the Civil Act. Thus, it is clear that the above error of law in the court below is affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and it can be seen that the above error of law is included in the points of this point.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)