In a case where there is a proximate causal relation between the location of burden of proof and the structural defect of a motor vehicle or the expansion of damage as to the exemption from liability under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 29 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 19(4)6 of the Rules on Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 et al., the taking over of the lawsuit of the deceased Nonparty

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na90082, 9099 (Counterclaim) Decided July 8, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The main text of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that "a person who operates an automobile for his/her own sake shall be liable to compensate for damage caused by the death or injury of another person due to the operation of the automobile," which provides that "if a person, other than a passenger, dies or is injured, he/she shall not be negligent in paying due attention to the operation of the automobile, but shall not apply in cases where he/she proves that the person himself/herself or any third person, other than his/her own or his/her driver, has not caused any defect or malfunction in the structure or skills of the automobile, and that a person who is not a passenger of his/her own vehicle or a passenger of another vehicle is killed or injured, he/she shall not be liable to compensate for the damage caused by the accident of the automobile, unless he/she proves that the person is negligent in paying due attention to the operation of the automobile, and that the person who operates the automobile for his/her own sake shall not be liable to compensate for the damage caused by the accident of the vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da54754, Mar.

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that there was a somewhat structural defect or functional obstacle, such as the fact that the rear side safety board of the truck of this case was not properly attached in conformity with the standards required by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or that the function of the device was not fully restricted, etc., but the fact-finding and the fact-finding generally can function to prevent the damaged vehicle from being pushed down below the cargo vehicle in the public notice of collision of large cargo vehicles. However, in light of the fact that the damaged vehicle can function to prevent it from being pushed down to the lower part of the cargo vehicle in the public notice of collision of large cargo vehicles, the fact-finding alone seems to be unable to function to prevent the shock and shock of loading, or to absorb the shock, as argued by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”), there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the accident of this case was caused or that the serious result was caused without being loaded.

However, inasmuch as it can be seen that there is structural defect or functional obstacle to the latter part of the truck of this case, as the court below acknowledged, there is no proximate causal relation between structural defect or functional obstacle of this case and the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damage, the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) who is the operator shall bear the burden of proof. Such determination by the court below is based on the premise that the burden of proof is against the defendants who are the injured party, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of the burden of proof as to the exemption from liability under the proviso of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, which affected the conclusion

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ assertion that the damage to the deceased was expanded due to the structural defect or functional disorder of the safety board of the instant truck, because the safety board of the Nonparty’s head was unable to engage in buffer action by illegally loading the truck of this case without any buffer action, thereby causing the death of the Nonparty. As such, the lower court determined that, even if the Nonparty was not at the time of the instant accident, even though there was no structural defect (protruding out from the post-safety board) in the instant truck, it would have been presumed that the Non-Party would incur from the Nonparty’s head immediately after the collision with the post-safety board, it would not have reached the death accident without any structural defect.

그런데 자동차관리법 제29조 제2항 , ‘자동차안전기준에 관한 규칙’(2004. 8. 6. 건설교통부부령 제408호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제19조 제4항 제6호 에 의하면, 차량총중량이 3.5톤 이상인 화물자동차는 지상으로부터 3ｍ 이하의 높이에 있는 차체 후단으로부터 차량길이 방향의 안쪽으로 400㎜ 이내에 후부안전판을 설치하도록 규정하고 있는바, 기록 및 원심의 인정 사실에 의하면, 이 사건 트럭에 실제 장착된 적재함은 원래의 규격에 비해 1.03ｍ 정도 더 길어 적재함의 뒷부분이 후부안전판으로부터 90㎝ 정도 돌출되어 있고, 높이는 약 1.35ｍ 이상이어서 이 사건 사고 당시 소외인이 운전하던 오토바이의 앞바퀴나 핸들축이 먼저 후부안전판에 충격하지 않고 소외인의 머리 부분이 적재함에 바로 충격하고 몸이 뒤로 젖혀진 사실 및 위 충격으로 인하여 소외인이 착용하고 있던 안전모 앞부분에 균열이 생기고, 안전모 끈 고정부위가 파손되었던 사실을 알 수 있는데, ‘자동차안전기준에 관한 규칙’에 적합하게 이 사건 트럭의 후부안전판이 차체 안쪽 40㎝ 이내에 설치되어 있었을 경우 소외인이 운전하던 오토바이의 앞바퀴나 핸들축이 먼저 후부안전판에 충격하고, 그 후 관성으로 인하여 소외인의 몸이 앞으로 튕기면서 머리 부분이 이 사건 트럭의 적재함에 부딪혔을 가능성이 많지만 후부안전판과 오토바이가 먼저 충돌할 때에 어느 정도의 충격이 흡수되었을 여지도 있고, 따라서 소외인의 머리 부분이 이러한 1차 충돌 없이 직접 적재함에 충돌하는 경우가 오토바이와 이 사건 트럭의 후부안전판이 먼저 충돌하고 나중에 소외인이 이 사건 트럭의 적재함에 충돌한 경우보다 그 충격이 더 컸을 가능성이 있다고 보여진다.

Therefore, the circumstances cited by the court below alone are that it is difficult to view that there is no proximate causal relation between structural defect or functional obstacle of the cargo after the truck of this case and the expansion of damage caused by the accident of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)