If a person who is not a driver's disease of an accident vehicle is not superior to his duties, and if he causes an accident while arbitrarily operating a motor vehicle without any relation to his duties, he shall not be deemed to operate a motor vehicle for himself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act.

Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na412 delivered on December 13, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal 1 and 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's claim for damages under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Act by finding out that the non-party (name omitted) who was on dispatch for security service at the same rank (name omitted) under the same rank that he was on dispatch for the purpose of guard service and drinking back from the temporary leave as indicated in its judgment and dispatched a vehicle belonging to the unit (name omitted) unit to contact with the string of the string of the string of the string of the city, and driving the vehicle to the string of the city, which was placed on the right side of the string of the city, with the driver's office in Busan, Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong, Busan, the court below received the victim's string at the time immediately before the end of the accident, and completed the hospital treatment after having caused the death on July 22, 1972, since the accident was objectively caused by the defendant's performance of duty, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's damage compensation claim was operated by the defendant.

If the facts are the same, the non-party (the non-party who is not the driver's license of the motor vehicle) who is engaged in the guard duty of the motor vehicle in this case is no superior to the security service, which is the duty of the defendant, and the accident occurred when he arbitrarily operated the motor vehicle without any relation to the defendant's duty. Thus, it is reasonable to view this accident objectively from the defendant's duty, and therefore it cannot be deemed that the operation of the motor vehicle in this case does not constitute the operation of the motor vehicle for his own own interest under the above provision, and it cannot be deemed that the operation of the motor vehicle in this case is not the operation of the motor vehicle for his own interest, and the defendant is not liable under the above provision. The decision made with the same purport is just and there is no error of misunderstanding the Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act, and the defendant is not responsible under the main sentence of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act, and the theory was developed with the exception of the exemption from the operation of the motor vehicle in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)