[1] Criteria for determining "operation" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

［2］ 속칭 날치기 범행을 하기로 마음먹고 승용차를 정상적인 용법에 따라 운행하여 가면서, 같은 방향 왼쪽 앞을 걸어가고 있던 피해자의 핸드백을 잡아채고는 피해자가 핸드백을 빼앗기지 않으려고 아직 잡고 있는 상태에서 위 승용차를 가속하여 도주함으로써, 피해자가 그 힘을 이기지 못하여 차에 끌려오다가 핸드백을 놓치면서 뒹굴면서 넘어졌고 그로 인하여 상해를 입은 사안에서, 승용차의 운행과 사고 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 한 사례

[1] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that "a person who operates an automobile for his own sake shall be liable to compensate for damages when he dies or gets injured by another person due to the operation of the automobile." The term "operation due to the operation" in the above Article shall be determined according to whether a proximate causal relationship between the operation and the accident can be recognized.

［2］ 속칭 날치기 범행을 하기로 마음먹고 승용차를 정상적인 용법에 따라 운행하여 가면서, 같은 방향 왼쪽 앞을 걸어가고 있던 피해자의 핸드백을 잡아채고는 피해자가 핸드백을 빼앗기지 않으려고 아직 잡고 있는 상태에서 위 승용차를 가속하여 도주함으로써, 피해자가 그 힘을 이기지 못하여 차에 끌려오다가 핸드백을 놓치면서 뒹굴면서 넘어졌고 그로 인하여 상해를 입은 사안에서, 승용차의 운행과 사고 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 한 사례.

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276 delivered on September 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3281) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da39689 Delivered on October 28, 2004

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Han-han, Attorney Ahn Byung-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Na2416 Decided November 3, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the assertion of violation of the rules of evidence

In light of the records, the court below rejected the testimony of the non-party 1 of the witness of the court below and took the statements from the investigation agency of the plaintiff 1, and recognized the fact that the plaintiff 1 was faced with the right side part of the front side of the passenger car which the non-party 1 driven at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle of proximate causal relation

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that, as seen earlier, Nonparty 1, who driven a car insured by the defendant company, suffered injury as stated in the judgment of the court below, due to the accident involving Plaintiff 1’s right side part of the rear-down car, due to the accident involving Plaintiff 1’s side side side of the right side, and thus, the defendant is liable under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. However, even if Plaintiff 1 was not directly faced with the above car, the court below added the judgment that proximate causal relation is recognized with the operation of the defendant insured vehicle in light of the circumstances

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that "a person who operates an automobile for his own sake shall be liable to compensate for damage if he dies or gets injured by another person due to the operation of the automobile." The term "operation caused by operation" in the above Article shall be determined according to whether a proximate causal relation can be acknowledged between operation and accident (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Da24276 delivered on September 30, 1997; 2004Da39689 delivered on October 28, 2004, etc.).

이 사건에서 소외 1이 소외 2와 함께 속칭 날치기 범행을 하기로 마음먹고 피고 회사의 보험에 가입한 승용차를 정상적인 용법에 따라 운행하여 가면서, 같은 방향 왼쪽 앞을 걸어가고 있던 원고 1의 핸드백을 잡아채고는 원고가 핸드백을 빼앗기지 않으려고 아직 잡고 있는 상태에서 위 승용차를 가속하여 도주함으로써, 원고가 그 힘을 이기지 못하여 차에 끌려오다가 핸드백을 놓치면서 뒹굴면서 넘어졌고 그로 인하여 원고가 상해를 입었다면 승용차의 운행과 이 사건 사고 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 할 것이므로, 이 부분 원심의 판시도 정당한 것으로 넉넉히 수긍할 수 있고, 거기에 상고이유에서 주장하는 바와 같은 상당인과관계의 인정에 관한 법리오해 등의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)