(2) In the case of an illegal act, a reasonable relation to the liability for damages;

The case where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to considerable relations with the tort.

Articles 750, 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Jeonbuk Passenger Transport Corporation

Jeonju District Court Decision 65Na444 delivered on March 11, 1966

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

In its reasoning, the lower judgment determined that: (a) Nonparty 2, who did not take away passengers from a place (road) adjoining to the Vice Minister of Southern-dong, Southern-si, Seoul-si, and (b) did not stop a brating device so that the vehicle can not be removed; and (c) did not stop the vehicle; and (d) did not have any relation with the result of the damage of the Plaintiff’s business equipment, etc.; (b) Nonparty 2, who did not have driver’s license; (c) did not take drinking; and (d) attempted to drive the bals by taking out drinking; and (d) tried to remove the bals from around 10 meters; and (e) partly destroyed the Plaintiff’s business equipment, etc.; and (e) did not have any relation with the result of the damage of the Plaintiff’s business equipment, etc.; and (e) did not have any relation with the aforementioned person as a result of the damage.

However, inasmuch as Non-Party 1, a driver, stops the passenger on the road without deducting the upper part of the 4th 4th son’s upper part of the 4th son’s body, and without taking any brasing device to prevent the vehicle from leaving the vehicle, and caused damages to the plaintiff, the damages are deemed to be caused by Non-Party 1’s negligence, which is the driver, and the harmful act. The damages are caused by Non-Party 1’s negligence, and the damages are caused by the harmful act. Even if the act of a third party without the driver’s license was conducted for the purpose, it is deemed to have been committed by Non-Party 1’s negligence, which is the driver, and it is reasonable to view that there is considerable error in the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the result of the harmful act and the damage of the Plaintiff’s business equipment, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the difference between the result and the non-party 1’s negligence.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)