Even if the state or public organization is not the exercise of public authority, but is engaged in private economic activities in a just equal position, the State Compensation Act's provision on the liability for compensation for such damage cannot be applied.

Even if the state or public organization is not a public authority, but a private economy entity is acting on an equal footing, the provisions of the State Compensation Act on the liability of compensation for such damage cannot be applied. Therefore, the city is responsible for any bus accident under this Article and its driver is not a public official in extraordinary civil service at the city.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Song-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na355 delivered on October 25, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

No. 1. The State Compensation Act applies to cases where a public official, in the exercise of public authority, caused damage to another person by his intentional or negligent violation of the law and thereby caused damage to the State or local autonomous organization. The State or public organization, even though the government or public organization, shall not be subject to the State Compensation Act provisions for the liability of compensation for damage, if he was engaged in private economy in an equal position rather than exercising the public authority, and in a timely equal position. In this case, the court below affirmed the reasoning that the defendant's business-for-profit business-for-profit business-the-profit business-the-profit business-the-child of the plaintiff around 9:00 p. 9:00,000,000 on August 3, 1967, the non-party 2, who was the plaintiff, is the employer of the non-party 1, and the defendant is liable for compensation for the plaintiff's loss due to the death of the non-party 2 as the employer, and this conclusion cannot be applied to the non-party 1's business under the State Compensation Act.

No. 2. In this case, the court below's decision that the defendant is liable for damages means the liability under the main sentence of Article 756 (1) of the Civil Act as the employer with respect to the accident occurred due to the negligence of the non-party Kim Sung who is an employee of the defendant, and since the defendant is not liable for damages on the ground that he is responsible for the negligence, the defendant's liability for damages cannot be accepted. However, even though Article 756 (1) of the Civil Act provides that the employer is not liable for damages if the employer has paid considerable attention to the appointment and supervision of the employee, or if there is a considerable attention to the appointment and supervision of the employee, the defendant's liability for damages is not acknowledged on the ground that the employer is not responsible for the appointment and supervision of the employee under the above provision, but the defendant's liability for damages is recognized under the main sentence of Article 756 (1) of the Civil Act as stated above. Thus, it cannot be accepted whether the appointment and supervision of the employee belongs to the defendant'

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)