대법원판례를 중심으로 본 자동차손해배상보장법상의 ‘운행으로 인하여’의 판단기준에 관한 小考

Abstract

Clause 3 of "The Automobile Damage Compensation Law (ADCL)" states that "a person who drives a car for himself (hereafter referred to as 'driver') is held responsible for all incurred damages in the event of causing the death or injuring another individual when driving." According to ADCL, a man who driving a car is responsible for an accident only “Due to Operation of Automobile" - not for all the accidents widely related to car operations. It means there should be appropriate cause and effect between driving and accident to be responsible. Nevertheless, there is still a problem. Still now, most theories and established precedents conclude that the meaning "Due to Operation" is related to only appropriation of general cause and effect that still remains the problem of interpretation. Even though, the effects of a driver's mistake is of little important, the Supreme court judgement inclined to admit the range of "due to driving" widely. Eventually the Supreme Court 'an accident due to operation' would decide to stand in a relationship with Reasonable Causation (appropriate cause and effect), if the driver of the car involved a little error, the Supreme Court tend to admit extensive 'Due to operation'. The effort of Supreme Court which the legislative intent of the ADCL meets protection of victims, if possible, the decision to 'Due to operation' are widely recognized. Eventually it will be obvious that the victim will eventually work to its advantage. But look at the recent Supreme Court cases, inclined to admit the range of "due to Operation" widely. So it is possible that article of ADCL will be to destroy. Also interpretation of 'Due to operation' is needed a reasonable restriction.