Whether or not the State Compensation Act applies to compensation for damage caused by bus operation by local governments;

There is no room to apply the State Compensation Act to accidents that occur while local governments are involved in bus transportation business, which is a private economic action.

Articles 1 and 9 of the National Security Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District Court (69A6809) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 69Da6809)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 393,442, KRW 30,00 per annum from March 13, 1969 to the full payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 30,000 per annum.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. As to the main defense:

The plaintiff's legal representative asserts that the plaintiff's cause of the principal action is the responsibility of the defendant as an employer under Article 756 of the Civil Code with respect to the traffic accident. The defendant's legal representative is liable for local governments under Article 756 of the Civil Code, even in the case of the liability for damages as the employer under Article 756 of the Civil Code, the defendant's principal action must be dismissed since the principal action does not meet the above requirements. However, the State Compensation Act applies to the case where the public official in the exercise of public authority is liable for damages to the State or local governments when he inflicts damages on others due to his intentional or negligent violation of the laws and regulations in the exercise of public authority, and the State Compensation Act applies to the case where the accident occurred while carrying out the bus transport service, which is a private economic action, as in this case, there is no ground to apply the above

2. As to the merits:

The defendant's business is one of his own business, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the plaintiff 1 was injured when the non-party 1 was injured when the non-party 6-164, the non-party 1, who is the defendant's employee, start the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government urban bus oil refineries around 9:50 p.m. on March 12, 1969, when the non-party 1, who is the defendant's employee, got off the bus oil refineries in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 12, 1969. When approximately 150 meters away from the same Dong refugee village to the same Dong refugee village, he fell down at a point of about a height of about 1 meter on the road.

Therefore, the above traffic accident occurred while the defendant operated a vehicle for himself. Under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 756 of the Civil Act, the defendant is responsible for compensating for all damages suffered by the plaintiff 1 due to the above accident. Thus, considering the statement of No. 2 (Medical Certificate) which can be recognized as true by the testimony of the non-party 2 by the non-party 3 of the original judgment, the appraisal result of the non-party 3 of the original judgment, and the testimony at the original judgment, the plaintiff 1 suffered injury for less than 50 days, such as 50 days old, 30 days old, 40 days old, 30 days old, 40 days old, 50 old, 50 old, 190 old, 200 old, 190 old, 30% old, 190 old, 20 old, 30 days old, 190 old, 30% old, 190 old, 200 old, 300 old,

Furthermore, according to the health care unit Gap evidence No. 1 without dispute over the claim for consolation money, the plaintiff 2 is the husband of the plaintiff 1 who is the victim of this case, and the plaintiff 3 can recognize the fact that he is the father of the victim of this case. Since the plaintiff 1 suffered the same injury as recognized above due to the traffic accident of this case, the plaintiff 2, 3, etc. who is the victim of this case must not speak, and it is natural in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff 2, 3, etc. who is in the same status as recognized above are receiving mental distress in the present or in the future. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money equivalent to the above mental distress of the plaintiffs. Thus, the amount of consolation money should be paid to the plaintiff 1 as the victim of this case, the degree of injury, personal status status, and the plaintiffs' academic background, living level of the plaintiff 1 as the victim of this case, and all other circumstances revealed in this case's argument, it shall be reasonable for the plaintiff 2 to pay consolation money to the plaintiff 1 as the plaintiff 1 as the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 20 billion won.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 343,442 won including the above expected profit loss amount and consolation money as to the plaintiff 1, 20, 100 won against the plaintiff 2, and 10,000 won to the plaintiff 3, and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from March 13, 1969 to the full payment system, which is the following day of the above accident that the plaintiffs sought against the plaintiff 1. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims against the plaintiff 1 are justified within the above recognized limit, and the above part of the claims in excess is unfair and dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment below with this conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed for reasons without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)