The relationship between the liability under the State Compensation Act and the liability of the employer under the Civil Act.

In a case where a public official inflicts damages on another person by intention or negligence in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, the State or a local government is not liable for such damages as an employer under the Civil Act. Thus, the fact that there was no negligence in the appointment and supervision of an employee, who is the reason for exemption under the Civil Act, is not exempted from liability

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Busan City

Daegu High Court Decision 69Na669 delivered on March 25, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

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

A person who operates a first-class motor vehicle shall be liable to compensate for damages caused by his idea unless he and the driver have neglected to pay attention to the operation of the motor vehicle and has proved that there was no intention or negligence on the part of the victim or a third party other than the driver, and that there was no defect in the structure or function of the motor vehicle (see Article 3 of the Automobile Compensation Guarantee Act). If the accident was caused by the rush pipe and pipe heat of the motor vehicle as in the theory of the lawsuit, it alone is liable to compensate the defendant for damages without considering whether the driver was not negligent.

Therefore, although it is not appropriate for the original judgment to state that the accident at issue was caused by Nonparty 1’s occupational negligence, which is the driver of the vehicle at issue, the conclusion that the defendant is liable for damages is justified, and that there is no negligence on Nonparty 1, who is the driver at issue, and therefore, the defendant is not liable for damages at issue cannot be accepted.

No. 2 The State or local government shall be liable for damages when the public official intentionally or negligently causes damages to another person in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes by intention or negligence. Thus, the fact that there was no negligence on the appointment and supervision of an employee, who is the reason for the exemption of the employer under the Civil Act, cannot be the reason for exempting the liability for damages under the State Compensation Act. Therefore, it is justifiable that the court below held that the defendant is liable for damages under the State Compensation Act even if there was no negligence on the appointment and supervision of Nonparty 2, and there is no ground for appeal that there was an error in the misunderstanding

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

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court