[1] The meaning of "using an automobile in accordance with its usage" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and the requirements to regard the separate use of a vehicle as being used in accordance with its usage in a case where it is possible to use it according to the purpose of use of various devices

[2] The case holding that in a case where a patient with an ambulances was transported to a hospital and the patient was injured by wrong manipulation of the Do that caused the patient's injury to the ground after the patient was transported to the hospital, it constitutes an accident caused by the operation of a motor vehicle

[1] According to the main text of Article 3 and subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, a person who operates an automobile for his own sake is liable for damages when he dies or gets injured by another person due to the operation of the automobile, and the term "operation" refers to the use or management of the automobile in accordance with the usage of the automobile regardless of the transport of people or things. The term "use of the automobile" refers to the use of various devices installed according to the purpose of the vehicle according to the usage of the vehicle for the purpose of its use. Even if the automobile is not in the state of driving, it includes the use of various auxiliary devices such as opening and closing the door at the front and rear stage of the vehicle in the state of driving, even though all devices installed according to the purpose of the vehicle are continuously fixed and used in the vehicle in principle, but if it can be separated from the purpose of the vehicle in question, it is essential to use the vehicle in accordance with the usage of the vehicle in question, and it is also closely related to the use of the vehicle in question.

[2] The case holding that in a case where a patient with an ambulances was transported to a hospital and the patient was injured by misunderstanding that the patient was killed in the ground and then was damaged by breaking the patient to the ground, it constitutes an accident caused by the operation of a motor vehicle.

[1] Article 2 subparag. 2 and Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act / [2] Article 2 subparag. 2 and Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da8101 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1539), Supreme Court Decision 93Da595 delivered on August 23, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2500), Supreme Court Decision 96Da7359 delivered on May 28, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 1998)

Newdong Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-ro, Attorneys Gyeong-gil et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim (Attorney Lee Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na58838, 58845 delivered on March 18, 2004

All the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Fact finding and judgment by the court of original judgment

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence adopted.

(1) On October 200, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) entered into an automobile liability insurance contract and a comprehensive insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant insurance contract”) with the Emergency Patients Transfer Team to the Social Welfare Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted Corporation”) for the period of October 24, 2000 to October 24, 2001, which occurred while the non-party corporation owns, uses, and manages the ambulances for patient transport (vehicle registration number omitted) owned by it (hereinafter referred to as the “instant ambulances”), and received the insurance premium from the non-party corporation for the period of October 24, 200 to October 24, 200.

(2) Around March 1998, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) received an operation from the Seoul Central Hospital, and went to his own house on November 9, 200, after receiving the hospitalized treatment at the Gdong oriental medical hospital located in Samsungdongdong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and went to his own house on July 9, 200. On the 11st of the same month, Nonparty 1 was driving the instant ambulances and went to the said Gdong oriental medical hospital on the 11st of the same month.

(3) At around 10:15 on the same day, Nonparty 1 arrived at the parking lot of the above hospital and she was able to get off the above vehicle by using those (hereinafter referred to as “the above”). The above are so-called automateds, and the rear side (patient bridge direction) is plucking up, and the front side (patient head direction) is plucking up, and the front side (patient head direction) is plpl up, and the front side (patient head direction) is plpl up, but the front side does not change the direction. At that time, Nonparty 1 tried to cooperate with Nonparty 2 in the front side of the accident (hereinafter referred to as “the front side of the accident”) because the front side of the accident and the rear side of the accident were turned back to the front side of the accident.

B. The lower court determined as follows with respect to the allegations of the parties, and rejected all of the Defendant’s counterclaims.

(1) The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident was not caused by the operation, possession, use, and management of the instant ambulances, and that there was no liability for damages under the instant insurance contract, and sought confirmation of the non-existence of the liability for damages.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred in the course of using the instant devices, which are the unique devices of the instant ambulances, and that the Nonparty corporation was liable under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act as the operator of the instant ambulances, or liable under the Civil Act as the user of Nonparty 1, who is a tort, and thus, the Plaintiff was liable for damages under the instant insurance contract, and that the Plaintiff was liable for damages arising from the instant accident, based on the direct claim against the insurer, and sought compensation for damages incurred to the Plaintiff as a counterclaim

(2) The judgment of the court below

(A) The part on the liability under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

According to the main sentence of Article 3 and subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, a person who operates an automobile for his own sake is liable for damages when he dies or gets injured by another person due to his operation, and the term "operation" means the use or management of an automobile according to its usage, regardless of whether or not the person or the article is transported, regardless of whether or not the person or the article is transported. Here, the term "use of an automobile" means the use of all or part of the unique apparatus or part of the automobile which is continuously fixed according to the purpose of the automobile, which is equipped with the structure of the automobile, according to its respective use.

With regard to this case, the first-aid vehicle in this case is always equipped with assistive equipment that is always equipped to move the patient to another place such as a hospital, hospital, accident place, etc. in the course of the patient's riding. However, it is difficult to regard the accident as an accident caused by the operation of the first-aid vehicle in this case as an accident, and therefore, it cannot be said that the accident in this case is the accident caused by the operation of the first-aid vehicle in this case, and therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff, the insurer of the first-aid vehicle in this case, is responsible for the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

(B) Part on employer liability under the Civil Act

Since it can be known that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of Nonparty 1, the non-party 1 and the non-party corporation, the user of this case, shall be liable for damages caused by the tort under the Civil Act against the defendant. However, the plaintiff, the insurer of this case, takes over only the liability for damages caused by the accident of this case, which occurred during the possession, use, and management of the emergency vehicle of this case. The accident of this case was caused by the negligence during the use of the auxiliary equipment equipped with the emergency vehicle of this case, and it does not constitute the proper device of this case. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the accident of this case occurred during the possession, use, and management of the emergency vehicle of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is not liable for damages under the insurance contract of this case against the defendant.

2. The judgment of this Court

According to the main sentence of Article 3 and Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, a person who operates an automobile for his/her own sake is liable to compensate for damage if he/she dies or injures another person due to the operation of the automobile, and the term "operation" means the use or management of the automobile in accordance with the usage of the automobile regardless of whether or not the person or article is transported. Here, the term "use of the automobile in accordance with the usage of the automobile" means the use of various devices installed according to the usage of the automobile for the purpose of each device. Even if the automobile is not in the state of driving, it includes the use of various ancillary devices such as opening and closing the door at the front and rear stage of driving, even if it is not necessarily in the state of driving, it is closely possible to use the automobile in accordance with the usage of the automobile in question, and it is possible to use the vehicle in question separately from the vehicle in accordance with the usage of the vehicle in question.

Examining the records of this case in light of the above legal principles, we cannot accept the decision of the court below that the accident of this case was not caused by the operation of the ambulances of this case for the following reasons.

According to Article 6 [Attachment 2] of the "Rules on Standards for Emergency Vehicles and Standards for Emergency Patients Transport Facilities, etc. (Ordinance No. 9 of July 31, 1995, Ordinance No. 25 of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Ordinance No. 25, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") enacted by delegation of the Emergency Medical Service Act, the "Simplified erosion" is prescribed as a device to be equipped with a first-aid vehicle, and the "Simplified erosion" is attached to a vehicle at ordinary times, and the "Simplified erosion" is attached to a vehicle at ordinary times and is kept in custody. According to the records of this case, since this case's equipment used by Non-party 1 when the defendant is sent back to the defendant is considered to be a simple erosion (refer to the records of this case, 14-15, 21-216-27, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), the structure of this case's equipment falls under the purpose of this case's equipment attached thereto.

In addition, the 'temporary intrusion' which is installed in the first-aid vehicle like this case has the purpose of getting a patient in front of the patient's engine while being firmly attached to the vehicle at the time of the patient's engine, and it is necessary to have an accessory device that can be separated from the vehicle but can be firmly attached to the vehicle in accordance with the above Rule (Attached Table 2), and it is necessary to install a patient stop system with a width of not less than 5 cm which can fix not less than 3 parts, such as chest, elel and shot, etc. at the time of the accident, and it is necessary to install a patient stop system with a width of not less than 5 cm which can fix not less than 3 parts, such as the breast, el, etc. at the time of the accident in front of the patient's engine, and as the court below legitimately recognized it by its adopted evidence, the accident in this case is that the defendant was unable to walk at the entrance of the hospital in front of the vehicle in this case, and it is possible for the defendant to see it out of the bridge in front.

As such, the instant accident is ordinarily fixed to the instant first-aid vehicle. At the time of the instant accident, Nonparty 1 used the instant objects for the purpose of the device, and it is an essential element to achieve the purpose of the first-aid vehicle’s use. The instant accident is closely related to the use of the instant first-aid vehicle in time and space since the instant accident occurred while the instant first-aid vehicle was being driven by the patient at the time of the instant accident, and thus, even if it was used separately from the instant first-aid vehicle at the time of the instant accident, it constitutes an operation under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and therefore, the instant accident constitutes an accident caused by the operation of the instant first-aid vehicle.

Despite the above circumstances, the court below held that the accident of this case is not an accident caused by the operation of a motor vehicle on the ground that this case's device is continuously fixed to the first-aid vehicle and cannot be seen as a device installed in the structure of the motor vehicle. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of "the operation of a motor vehicle" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 and the main text of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, all the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)