A. The case holding that the driver has been negligent in neglecting his duty of care to the previous driver.

(b) Article 2 of the State Compensation Act is not a provision that imposes liability on the State or a public entity until it has performed its activities as a mere subject of private economy even though it is the State or a public entity.

Since the provisions of this Article are not a provision that imposes liability on the State or a public organization until they act as the principal agent of a simple private economy, it is not necessary to go through the decision of the Compensation Council under Article 9 of this Act in a lawsuit against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the employer for the damages caused by the negligence of the former driver.

Article 756 of the Civil Code, Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 9 of the State Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 61Da898 delivered on February 28, 1962, Supreme Court Decision 68Da2226 delivered on April 22, 1969

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na917 delivered on April 30, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na917 delivered on April 30, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney;

According to the facts established by the court below, the non-party 1 was driving a 319 p.m. 3 p.m. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1") under the jurisdiction of the defendant's entire transportation business office, and the non-party 1 was driving a c.m. 3 p. 40 p.m. on the c.m. 1967.1. 23 p.m. (hereinafter referred to as the "c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. of the above c. c. c. c. of the above c. c. c. c. c. c.

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The provisions of Article 2 of the State Compensation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 61Da898 delivered on February 28, 1962, Supreme Court Decision 68Da2226 delivered on April 22, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 68Da2226 delivered on the premise that when a public official intentionally or negligently inflicted damage on another person in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes by intention or negligence due to the governing power of the State, or due to the exercise of public power, the State or a public organization shall not be held liable until the State or a public organization acts as the subject of private economy (see Supreme Court Decision 61Da898 delivered on April 28, 1962, Supreme Court Decision 68Da2226 delivered on April 22, 196), which the Seoul High Court operated by the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City as a private economic subject, it is justifiable to recognize the plaintiffs' claim as seeking compensation as an employer under the Civil Act, and to determine that it is unnecessary to receive a decision to pay compensation under

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon