자동차손해배상보장법 제3조상의 운행기인성에 관한 판례연구 (대법원 2009. 4. 9. 선고 2008다93629판결)

Abstract

Automobile has become such an integral and essential part of the daily lives of the modern people that they cannot seem to survive without them. Along with the increase in the usage of automobile, traffic accidents are inevitable. It must be pointed out here that the traditional theory of automobile damage compensation law which states that the victim must prove that a misconduct has been committed by the said culprit is not very sound especially in light of protecting the victim. According to “The Automobile Damage Compensation Law(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 automobile operations. It means there should be Reasonable Causation (appropriate cause and effect) between driving and accident to be responsible. Nevertheless, there is still a problem. Until now, our theory and precedents of the ‘Due to operation’ has been determined on the meaning of the general causation only, so problem of adequate cause comes down experience and judgement from the facts that much of these problems due to the legal consequence will still remains the problem of interpretation. 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. How to interpret the validity of the loss of these specific concerns raised violate the legal stability, so interpretation of ‘Due to operation’ is needed a reasonable restriction. This Supreme court judgement inclined to admit the range of “due to driving” widely, for the victims are considered excessive in terms of protection. I oppose to the Final Judgement because reach contradictory conclusions to admit liability on ADCL if automobile is operating accident, though it keeps step with the purpose of legislation of ADCL which protects the victim sufficiently. Reckless interpretation of a stretch of “due to driving” is to shake the base of the ADCL, it's interpretation will have to be cautious.