The validity of the "Guidelines for Handling Vehicle Accidents" in the company

The "Guidelines for Handling Vehicle Accidents" of the company is only the guidelines for the internal deliberation of the company that deliberated on the vehicle accident, and the entry of the guidelines is the basis for the liability for damages or the exercise of the right of indemnity between the company and its employees.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Korea Transportation Corporation

Defendant 1 and two others

Gwangju District Court (79Gahap451)

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked.

Defendant 1 shall pay to the Plaintiff 1,50,000 won, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 shall be jointly and severally with Defendant 1 the amount of KRW 700,000 among the above amounts, and Defendant 1, Defendant 3 shall be paid from December 11, 1979 to Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 shall be at the rate of 5 percent per annum from December 12 to each full payment date.

The plaintiff's remaining appeals against the defendants are dismissed, respectively.

All of the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts of the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the defendants, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

The above paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,084,908 and the amount of KRW 50% per annum from the day following the day when the duplicate of the instant case was served on the Defendants to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants in both the first and second instances, and a provisional execution is declared.

On April 20, 1978, Defendant 1, who was employed as a driver of a vehicle belonging to the Plaintiff Company, was killed, and on April 15, 1978, he was driving the (vehicle number omitted) truck belonging to the Plaintiff Company and did not maintain the safety distance from the vehicle (vehicle number omitted) belonging to the Plaintiff Company 1 at the right point of 62 kilometers in Seoul, on the right side of the road at a point of 62 kilometers in Seoul. Since the above truck was parked rapidly due to the appearance of an obstacle, Nonparty 1, who was an assistant of the said Defendant’s truck, who was on board the Defendant Company, died, caused the accident, such as damage of each of the above collision vehicles, etc., and the Defendant 2 and 3 did not have an obligation to compensate the Plaintiff Company for damages caused by the Plaintiff Company’s intentional or negligent negligence. Accordingly, the Defendants’ claim for damages against the Plaintiff Company, which had been done with the Plaintiff Company, shall not be held liable to compensate the Plaintiff Company for damages.

Therefore, according to the evidence No. 1 (Guidelines for Handling Vehicle Accidents), if a driver of the Plaintiff Company paid a vehicle accident without dispute to the Plaintiff Company, (1) the accident occurred due to drinking driving, (2) the accident occurred due to driving on behalf of another person, (3) the accident occurred due to driving on behalf of another person, (5) the accident occurred due to driving on board without driving instructions, (7) the accident due to driving on board without driving instructions, and (3) the accident due to intentional driving on board, and (7) the accident due to the above 7 items such as (7) the accident due to driving on board, etc., the driver and the fidelity are not obliged to compensate for the damages due to the accident. However, according to the above guidelines for handling the accident, the driver company's liability to compensate for the damages due to the accident is not required to refer the above guidelines for handling the accident to the Plaintiff Company as well as the employee's liability to compensate for the damages due to driving on board the Plaintiff Company. However, according to the above guidelines for handling the accident, it is not necessary to refer the same guidelines for handling the accident to the Plaintiff Company's liability for treating the accident.

Therefore, there is no dispute over the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff company as to Gap evidence 4 (certificate), Gap evidence 2-1 through 3 (Simplified import account statement, deposit slip, etc.), Gap evidence 3-1 through 3 (each receipt), Eul evidence 5, 6-1, 2 (each disbursement decision letter, bereaved family funeral benefit statement), Gap evidence 9, 10-2 (transaction statement), Gap evidence 11-2 (transaction statement) which is presumed to have been authentic by testimony of Kim Chang-chul, and the fact that the above fact was paid to the non-party 7, 8 (vehicle repair instruction and repair statement) as well as non-party 1's testimony, and the purport of testimony and pleading of the above documents, the amount of damages paid to the non-party 1 as the repair expenses of the non-party 1, the amount of damages paid to the non-party 1 as the repair expenses of the non-party 1, and the amount of damages paid to the non-party 1 as the repair expenses of the plaintiff 350, 4090 won and 198.

Therefore, the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff Company shall be KRW 1,417,00,00, which is the aggregate amount of KRW 5,313,108, and shall be KRW 3,896,108 if the Plaintiff Company deducteds KRW 1,417,00,00 for industrial accident compensation, and the Defendant’s legal representative asserts that the Plaintiff Company caused the above accident without any time to rest Defendant 1, and that it should be taken into account in determining the amount of damages of the Defendants. Thus, considering the whole purport of the arguments in the testimony of the Plaintiff Company, Defendant 1 was 0,00,000 from around April 1964 to the time when the Plaintiff Company was working as the Plaintiff Company, and it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff Company to take into account the fact that the Plaintiff Company’s negligence was caused by the Plaintiff Company’s negligence for the last 14 years, and thus, it is reasonable to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff Company’s negligence was caused by the Plaintiff Company’s negligence.

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 150,00,00 to the Plaintiff; Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are jointly and severally liable with Defendant 1 to pay the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 700,000 among the above amounts; Defendant 1 and 3, who is obvious from December 11, 1979 to the day following the record that the gusheshesheshe was served on the Defendants as requested by the Plaintiff, and Defendant 2 is liable to pay an amount equivalent to the annual rate of KRW 5% from December 11, 1979 to the full payment date (the Plaintiff’s attorney is jointly and severally seeking damages against the Defendants, but the above fidelity is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 1, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that his debt is jointly and severally liable between them; the remainder is cited within the scope of the above recognition and the remainder is without merit; the judgment of the court of first instance to dismiss the remainder of the judgment falling under Article 9 of the Civil Procedure Act from the judgment of the Plaintiff.

Judges Lee Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)