The purport of the proviso of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

According to the provisions of the proviso of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, in case where a person who operates for his own sake dies of a passenger due to his intentional act or suicide, he shall be exempted from the compensation only when he died due to his intentional act or suicide, and in addition, his employee's negligence shall not be followed. Thus, he cannot claim the exemption from the compensation on the ground that the driver is not negligent.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da1606 delivered on January 27, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 3829Da1829 delivered on June 1, 197, Supreme Court Decision 18Da166 delivered on June 26, 199, Decision Article 3(3) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff

Asan-gun and one other

Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court (76Gahap100 delivered on July 1, 200)

Of the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment, the part dismissing the plaintiff's claim against the defendants as to the money ordered to be paid in the following manner is revoked.

The plaintiff shall pay 100,000 won to the plaintiff, 15,416,473 won to the defendant Han field transportation corporation, and 5% interest per annum from July 31, 1976 to the full payment day.

The remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant Asan-gun are dismissed.

All of the costs of lawsuit shall be ten minutes for the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendants.

The defendant et al. shall pay to each plaintiff the amount of 17,839,106 won with an annual rate of 5 percent from July 31, 1976 to the full payment.

The plaintiff has revoked the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment, and sought a judgment identical to the purport of the claim, and the defendant Asan-gun has revoked the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

(1) 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제2호증의 1,2, 갑 제3호증, 갑 제7호증의 1-7의 기재와 당심의 검증결과에 의하면 피고 아산군 소유의 분뇨수거용 차량 (차량번호 1 생략)호 트럭운전수인 소외 1은 1976.7.31. 13:40경 위 차량을 운전하고 온양읍에서 아산군 염치면을 향하여 시속 50키로 미터의 속력으로 운행중 아산군 온양읍 권곡리 소재 국도상에 이르렀는데 운전수로서는 음주만취하여 운전해서는 아니됨에도 불구하고 음주만취하여 운전해 가다가 자기노선 전면에 자전거를 타고 가는 학생을 발견하고 핸들을 왼쪽으로 심하게 꺾어 반대편 노선으로 진입하여 운행하는 순간 반대 방향에서 자기노선을 따라 운행해 오는 소외 2 운전의 피고 한밭운수주식회사 소유인 (차량번호 2 생략)호 영업용 택시를 발견하고 자기 노선을 찾아 우측으로 다시 핸들을 꺽는 순간 소외 2 역시 자기 노선을 침입해 오는 소외 1의 분뇨차를 보고 이를 피해 반대편 노선으로 피해 가다가 위 분뇨차로부터 위 택시의 오른쪽 문짝 부분을 들이 받쳐 그 택시에 타고 있던 소외 3을 두개골 골절상등으로 현장에서 사망케 한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.

According to the above recognition, the defendant et al. is responsible for compensating the damages caused by the above accident in accordance with Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, since the defendant et al. operated a motor vehicle for his own sake caused the collision between the above accident and the non-party 3's death.

The legal representative of the defendant Han field transportation company asserted that the non-party 2, who is the driver of the same defendant, shall be exempted from liability because there is no negligence in the above collision accident. Thus, according to the defendant's argument, even if the non-party 2 did not have any negligence in driving, according to the proviso of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, if the operator of a motor vehicle for his own sake killed or injured passengers due to the operation of the motor vehicle, he is the ground for the exemption from liability only for the death of the passenger or suicide, and the non-party 2, who is the driver of the same defendant, is not in accordance with the non-party 2, who is the driver of the above collision, is not negligent (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da1606 delivered on January 27, 1970). Thus, the defendant's assertion that the exemption from liability is not acceptable.

(2) Therefore, according to the above facts as to the damages amount to be borne by the Defendants, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 through 5, Gap evidence 6-1 and the testimony of non-party 4, the non-party 3 is a healthy male who had been living for 1946 May 5, 197 and the average remaining life amount was 37 years, and the annual deduction was 7,000 won per annum 47,000 won per annum 70,000 won per annum 70,000 won per annum 70,000 won per annum 70,000 won per annum 1,70,000 won per annum 70,000 won per annum 70,000 won per annum 1,70,000 won per annum 70,000 won per annum 1,70,000 won per annum 70,000 won per annum 5,000 won per annum 1,000 won per annum.

Next, the plaintiff can be easily recognized in light of our rule of experience that the plaintiff's death of non-party 3, who is the plaintiff, was caused by the accident of this case, and therefore, the defendants are obligated to act as above. In light of the circumstances of this case, the relation between the plaintiff and the non-party 3, age, occupation, and all other circumstances shown in this case's pleading, the compensation amount to be paid by the defendants shall be 200,000 won.

Ultimately, the defendants are obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above sum of KRW 15,416,473 as well as damages for delay at the rate of five percent per annum from July 31, 1976, which is the date of tort to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part of the original judgment different from this conclusion is unfair, the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the part of the original judgment is revoked, and the other plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are dismissed as well as the defendant's appeal are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 95, 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judge Jeon Byung-hee (Presiding Judge)