자율주행자동차 책임법제에 관한 연구 – 자배법상 대리운전기사 법리 도입을 중심으로 -

Abstract

A Level 3 autonomous vehicle refers to a vehicle that the automated driving system (so-called “ADS”) fully performs dynamic driving tasks under certain conditions, so the duty of care held by the vehicle owner or driver is significantly reduced unless, a request to change the control of the system is made. Therefore, the problem of distributing liability for personal accidents accordingly is different from that of existing motor vehicle accidents, and it is necessary to review the liability legislation for Level 3 autonomous vehicles. However, even now, when the commercialization of Level 3 autonomous vehicles is on the verge of, there is no unified liability act in Korea, and there is still a confrontation of theories in this regard. Most representatively, there are views that Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Security Act should be applied collectively either or Product Liability Act should be applied. These views do not fully reflect the characteristics of autonomous vehicles in which factual control over operation is transferred to ADS, and have clear limitations such as consistency issues with existing legislation. Considering the stage of commercialization of Level 3 autonomous vehicles, establishing a totally new legislation could cause time and economic inefficiency. Therefore, the best way is to apply it by analogy by fully utilizing the laws related to motor vehicle accidents that have been accumulated so far. In Korea, unique precedents have been maintained, which is the legal principles about designated drivers under Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Security Act, and the main point is to judge the distribution of liability differently depending on whether the victim of a personal accident is third party or the vehicle owner(the client) himself. In the former case, the vehicle owner is responsible for Personal Compensation Ⅰ under Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Security Act by recognizing the “operator's legal personality”, and in the latter case, the designated driving entrepreneur is responsible by recognizing the operator's legal personality in the internal relationship with the vehicle owner. The main parties to the designated driving-related accident appear to be the vehicle owner, the designated driving entrepreneur, and the designated driver who drives for the vehicle owner through the entrepreneur, and there is a great structural similarity between the designated driving and autonomous vehicle in that the “vehicle manufacturer etc.” provides ADS at the request of the vehicle owner. Paying attention to this, this study intends to solve the personal accident that occurs when driving an autonomous vehicle by ADS by analogy applying the legal principles about designated drivers under Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Security Act. This perspective is of great benefit to the discussion in that it can reflect the characteristics of autonomous vehicles and promote rapid damage compensation for victims and fairness in the distribution of liability. However, it has limitations in that defining the legal characteristic on ADS is a problem and there is criticism of the legal principles about designated drivers itself, so further review is required.