[손해배상(자)][공1992.8.1.(925),2128]
(a) The case holding that it is difficult to deem that the operator's liability could be mitigated in the accompanying ships, or that there was a reason to reduce the operator's liability even if he/she is on the accompanying ships;
C. Whether the victim was presumed to have died of only the victim among the passengers on board a vehicle due to a full-time reproduction of the vehicle, and the private person is presumed to have an excessive blood due to internal and long-term heat (negative)
A. Even if an operator of a vehicle without receiving any consideration, he/she could not be deemed to be an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, which has a operating profit or control over the passenger, even if he/she took the vehicle for the convenience and interest of the passenger without any consideration. However, if it is deemed that imposing liability on the operator of the vehicle involved in the accident is very unreasonable in light of the good faith or the principle of equity in light of all the circumstances, such as the personal relationship between the passenger and the operator, the circumstances surrounding the operation, the purpose of the request for the transfer, and the active nature of the request for the transfer, etc., the
(b) The case holding that it is difficult to view that there was a reason to reduce the liability for damages of the vehicle operator even if the driver who has completed night service was on the way on which he was on the way when he got a victim who had worked in the same department of the same company and was on his own at his own initiative and was on the way when he was on a move-out with her friendship along with her friendship, and he was on the same department of the same company;
C. Even if only the victim died of the passenger due to the front-time reproduction of the vehicle, and the private person is presumed to have been an excessive blood relative by internal and long-term heat, the victim cannot be presumed to have failed to wear the safety bell.
(b)Article 763 of the Civil Code (Article 396). Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act
A.C. Supreme Court Decision 91Da22728 delivered on October 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 2690). Supreme Court Decision 90Da13284 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1262) 91Da4093 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 1842). Supreme Court Decision 91Da9596 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong191, 1765)
[Judgment of the court below] and two plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Attorney Lee Jae-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Gwangju High Court Decision 91Na4866 delivered on January 30, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
With respect to No. 1:
Even if an operator of a motor vehicle took a place for the convenience of passengers and interests without any consideration, such fact alone cannot be deemed 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 that it is very unreasonable in light of the principle of good faith or the principle of equity to impose liability on the operator of the motor vehicle for the same reason as a general traffic accident in light of all circumstances, such as the personal relationship between the operators of the motor vehicle and the persons operating the motor vehicle, the background of the boarding, and the purpose and activeness of the demand for boarding, the amount of compensation may be reduced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu294, Dec. 22, 1987; 90Da1461, Feb. 12, 199; 91Da2728, Oct. 8, 1991; 200Da14020, Feb. 12, 199).
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.
There is no reason to discuss this issue.
With respect to the second ground:
The court below rejected the defendant's assertion of offsetting negligence on the ground that there is no evidence to support that the deceased did not wear a safety bell, and that there is no other evidence to support that the deceased did not wear a safety bell. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are acceptable, and there is no illegality of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence.
The Supreme Court Decision 89Meu6423 Decided June 27, 1989 cited by the theory of the lawsuit is different from the case in this case and cannot be viewed as an appropriate precedent in this case. The arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)