Claim for offsetting negligence against negligence committed by civilians on military vehicles.

When a civilian gets on a military vehicle but dies from the front reproduction, it shall not be allowed that the victim is negligent.

Article 763 of the Civil Act, Article 396 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Countries

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na614 delivered on November 17, 1966, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na614 delivered on November 17, 1966

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment, the whole copy of the vehicle was caused by the driver's negligence on the part of the defendant under official duty, and the non-party 1, the civilian victim who died of the accident in this case, was on board the vehicle, shall not be deemed to have a substantial relation between the non-party 1 and the accident in this case, even if the non-party 1 was on the ground of his inter-party hearing. Thus, the defendant's defense of offsetting negligence shall be rejected.

However, even if there is no causal relationship with the victim's letter of the main vehicle itself, if the victim did not take advantage of it, the result of the victim's death did not occur even if the accident occurred, so it shall be reasonable to deem that there was a substantial causal relationship between the victim's death and the victim's death. The tort of the plaintiff's assertion is the fact that the victim's death was caused by the front-down of the vehicle. Since the civilian cannot take advantage of the military vehicle under official duty, barring special circumstances, the civilian cannot take advantage of it. Thus, even if the victim was not negligent in the tort on the part of the victim, the original judgment did not dismiss the defendant's argument of offsetting for the same reason as above, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal reasoning affected the conclusion of the judgment.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu