초록 일부
Automobiles, necessity of modern people, are steadily increasing in number due to its convenience, and accordingly, its dangerousness of car accidents is also increasing. Otherwise, it is recognized a...
더보기
초록 전체
Automobiles, necessity of modern people, are steadily increasing in number due to its convenience, and accordingly, its dangerousness of car accidents is also increasing. Otherwise, it is recognized as an important legal assignment how they make a valid and rapid compensation to victims in what manner rather than the assailant''s responsibility matter in a car accident. For this reason, an extra compensation liability different from general torts is being made, which is ''operators'' responsibility‘ and what it belongs to is the automobile accident compensation security law.
With Article 3 of the automobile accident compensation security law defined as “The person who drives an automobile on one''s own account takes the responsibility for compensation when other person dies or get injured due to the driving”, ''the person who operates an automobile on one''s own account'' is appointed as a main agent of responsibility and ''other person'' as object of protection. Because these concepts are very abstract, the work that specifies this abstract concept in concrete issues is positively necessary.
This thesis is intended to specify the abstract concept on operators'' responsibility in Article 3 of the automobile accident compensation security law and interpreting it, and applying it to reality. The main contents are stated below.
First, the concept of driving in the automobile accident compensation security law was changed above all regarding the requirements of ‘driving of automobile.’ Instead of removing the term ''concerned device‘ which used to be disputed under existing theory, the automobile accident compensation security law revised in 1999 replaced it with the term ''the usage of automobile’, and expanded its concept to ''to use or manage‘ over just ''to use'' automobiles. This expansion of driving concept is considered a very noticeable achievement in aspect of easiness in victim protection and assailant determination.
But, ''driving‘ should be recognized as a normative concept, not a realistic concept. Thus, ''driving'' should not be judged by any facts or aspects but by what ricks the act is bringing about or what assesment could be made in society. Though it is said that the range of driving in the current automobile accident compensation security law has been enlarged in that sense, social validity should be taken into account when it comes to its interpretation and application. So, all of the car management can''t be seen as driving, and it should be considered whether the car has been used and managed according to its usage.
Second, with respect to the main agent of automobile operators'' responsibility, ‘operator’, ''the person who operates an automobile for one''s own account'' in Article 3 of the automobile accident compensation security law is a larger concept than that of drivers or holders, and the Supreme Court defines it as the person who enjoys the driving profit by controling the operation of automobile. So, the one who has the driving control and driving profit can be an operator. The character of operators on automobile can be accepted even if it doesn''t have concrete and realistic character and is abstract, indirect, and even have only controllableness. Likewise, the court says that the operator needs two elements of driving control and driving profit to admit the operators'' responsibility.
But since it''s not easy to judge whether there''s driving profits of abstract concept in each one''s specific issue, it is appropriate that they should admit the responsibility as an operator even if only the element of driving control is satisfied and the driving profit should be considered included in driving control. Furthermore, in character of risk responsibility theory in the automobile accident compensation security law, the character of operator should be acknowledged enough with making influence felt in a direct or indirect way or its possibility.
Third, in order for the victim to hold the assailant liability for damages under the automobile accident compensation security law, the victim must be other person. The reason is that since Article 3 of the automobile accident compensation security law acknowledges a claim for damages only to ‘other person’, operators can''t be protected as other person in accidents that occurred during operation of the car concerned. As specific types where the character of other person become a problem, there''s the case where the joint operator, joint driver, employee, relative, fellow passenger became a victim and so on. The issue about whether the character of other person is acknowledged for a victim in such cases should be judged considering whether the driving control and driving profit of the assailant is indicated more leading or indirect than that of the victim by measuring and comparing its degree and aspect, etc. of specific driving control of the assailant and victim at the time of the accident.
더보기 닫기
분관대출
서가에 책이 없을 때...
도서 Pick-Up서비스
찾아가는대출서비스
인쇄
