무인자동차와 관련한 자동차손해배상보장법 제3조의 해석

Autonomous vehicles establish human driving abilities through computer emulation, with the user inputting a destination of their choosing via remote control or within the vehicle itself; the autonomous vehicle will determine its path and surrounding environment automatically, however its function is only limited to the necessary travel controls, thus it does not interfere with other vehicle mechanics. With this autonomy taking place, there are no instances of human error in driving however, hacking and viruses infecting the system can diminish its capabilities, and has the potential to cause unforeseen accidents. When travelling via an autonomous vehicle, if there were a traffic collision that caused bodily harm, it is highly debatable whether under the Automobile Accident Compensation Security Law article 3 (AACSL) the victim is allowed compensation is highly debatable at this point, however it is up to the user that has the sense of responsibility of applying the same standards of law as its non-autonomous vehicle drivers whether the user were not driving at that instant. This does have the same effect as the vehicle owner allowing another driver to operate the vehicle, where if the driver has an instance of vehicle collision then the holder of the vehicle has partial responsibility under the drivers’ moral obligation and Accident Compensation Security Law article 3. On the topic of autonomous vehicles, both parties partaking the incident who likely to commit to operational responsibility are involved, thus the laws can be applicable for both parties. Moreover on this topic if there is a third person other the vehicle owners involved in an incident that have suffered bodily harm then there is no doubt that the person under Accident Compensation Security Law article 3 is classified as ‘another party’. However if the vehicle holder is part of a collision incident and has suffered bodily harm, where in the tradition sense of the owner operating the vehicle cannot be classified as ‘another party’ can be classified a second party of the incident when in an operation of autonomous vehicles. This can be in effect when the owner of the vehicle has suffered bodily harm when in an autonomous vehicle cannot be responsible and did not partake in operating responsibilities thus making the owner a second party to the incident. Receivables and liabilities that are extinguished by confusion when the legitimate interests to be recognized as the relationship between the duration of the bond that is the premise of the exercise of rights for third-person debt that a person is a debtor even if the President and creditors belong to the same person not. Due to a traffic accident caused by an autonomous vehicles, if car holders have suffered personal damage the car holder shall have the rank as status of driver and others at the same time. The victim was a car accident claim for damages due to third-party insurance companies, about the duration of the bonds because they can exercise their right, we have to accept. Therefore, the holder of the autonomous vehicles is right to claim damages for the victim about the driver pursuant to Automobile Accident Compensation Security Law article 3, which has the status of others on the basis shall not be extinguished by confusion.