Cases not examining whether the perpetrator’s harmful act is an act during the performance of official duties;

In the case where a manual of the Army, who is a guard for the dispatch and appointment of the manual, was in the seat of 2.5 ton of the vehicle stopped in the village, and the driver of the vehicle was opening and maintaining the bnd of the said vehicle, and the driver was in operation of the said vehicle, so if the driver caused the death of the vehicle before the vehicle is completely lowered, the driver is not a driver for any reason, regardless of the fact that the driver was not a driver, to determine whether the driver was driving the vehicle for any reason, but the situation where the driver was driving the vehicle on the part of the vehicle.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na565 delivered on November 18, 1966, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na565 delivered on November 18, 196

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed, and that part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s litigation performer, the case is examined;

The facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows. The non-party 1, the perpetrator, is the non-party 2, who is the officer to send the number belonging to the non-party 25th to the 206th Scupe Scup group, and the non-party 1, the perpetrator, when he sits in the driver's seat of 5/2 ton of the 632 Scup group belonging to the same association, which is stopped in the Dong office in front of the 25th to the 206 Supbup group, in front of the 105th ton of the 632 Supbup group, and the non-party 2, the victim, is holding and maintaining the 2nd unit of the same vehicle, and thus, the 2nd unit of the 5/205th unit of the 2nd group of the 2nd group of the 2nd group of the 2nd group of the 2nd group of the 2nd group of the 2nd group.

Therefore, even after examining the records of the case, although Nonparty 1, the perpetrator of this case, was not a driver of this case, it cannot be known that the motor vehicle was driven for any reason, and (According to the evidence verification protocol adopted by the original trial, Nonparty 1 started driving the motor vehicle without prior notice to Nonparty 2 while driving the motor vehicle). Nonparty 1, as long as the driver of this case is not a driver of this case, is not a driver of this case, it is impossible to determine whether the driver's act of driving the motor vehicle was performed public duty without judging the situation where Nonparty 1 was driven by the driver of this case. However, although the court below decided that the accident occurred while driving the motor vehicle temporarily as above, it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to illegality and performance of public duty, the judgment on the other grounds of appeal shall be omitted, and the part against the judgment of the court below shall be reversed by omitting the judgment on the grounds of appeal, and it shall be reversed by being unjust.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong