[손해배상(자)][공1991.4.1.(893),978]
Whether a member of each Dong constitutes an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (negative), and a reduction of compensation for damage on the ground of his/her succession (negative)
Even if an operator of a vehicle has moved to a third party for the benefit of a passenger without any consideration, such fact alone cannot be viewed as an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act with operating profit or operating control. However, if it is deemed unreasonable in light of all circumstances such as the personal relationship with a passenger, the situation of the passenger, the purpose and active nature of the demand for the same passenger, and the movement after the same, the amount of compensation can be reduced if it is deemed unreasonable in light of the principle of good faith or equity.
Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant)
[Defendant-Appellant] Choi Jae-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant
Promotional-Class Attorney Oat-jin, Counsel for the defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 90Na15329 delivered on October 17, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.
Even if an operator of a vehicle, without any consideration, took the vehicle at the same time for the convenience and interest of the passengers on board, such fact alone cannot be viewed as an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act with operating profit or operating control. However, in light of all circumstances such as the personal relationship with the passengers on board, the circumstances leading up to the movement, the purpose and active nature of the movement, and the movement after the movement, if it is deemed unreasonable under the principle of good faith or the principle of equity, the amount of compensation can be reduced (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu294, Dec. 22, 1987). In this case, the court below held that imposing liability like a general traffic accident on the defendant is unreasonable under the principle of good faith or the principle of equity.
2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3.
Since it is natural that if it is possible to recognize the income higher than the wage by statistical values of the statistical data of the report on the fact-finding survey of wage by the type of occupation based on reliable evidence, it is reasonable to calculate the lost profit. According to the records, the court below did not err in the determination of evidence against the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit which recognizes the plaintiff's provisional income based on the macroficsive evidence.
In addition, even if the court below examined the results of physical examination commissioned to the Chief of Seoul National University Hospital, employed by the court below in recognizing the loss rate of ability of the plaintiff, in light of the records, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the value of evidence in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, it is merely an error of legal confirmation
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)