B. Determination criteria for the owner's control of operation and loss of operating profit

(c) The case holding that Gap is responsible for driving the above vehicle under Article 3 of the above Act, in case where Eul, an employee of the third Deputy Commissioner, who had kept the keys of the above vehicle in the third Deputy Director while parking his own vehicle at the third Deputy Director, was involved in the accident;

(b) Whether the driver's control or the driver's profit has been lost shall be determined by a comprehensive assessment of various circumstances, such as the status of the management of the vehicle or its engine system, the circumstances that enable the operation regardless of the owner's intention, the personal relations between the owner and the driver, and the driver's intention to return

(c) The case holding that in case where Party A, who was an employee of the said third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third party

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The term "person who operates an automobile for his own sake" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act refers to a person who is in a position as a responsible subject to the control of the operation of an automobile and to enjoy the benefit therefrom in general and abstract sense. Thus, even if a third party was involved in an accident while driving the automobile without permission, the owner of the automobile who is normally in a position shall be held liable as an operator under the above Act in regard to the accident, if the third party cannot be deemed to have completely lost the control of the operation and the profit from the operation of the vehicle without permission, the owner shall be held liable as an operator under the above Act in relation to the accident. Whether the operation control and the profit from operation have been lost shall be determined by comprehensively assessing various circumstances such as the management status of the automobile or the key thereof, the circumstances available regardless of the owner's intention, the personal relations between the owner and the driver, and the driver's intention to return the vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision

As determined by the court below, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant vehicle, requested three months prior to the date of the accident, the Nonparty, who driven the said vehicle as an employee, to stop the vehicle several times near the office near the office where the Nonparty worked as an employee. At night, the Defendant’s office did not have any place to park the said vehicle at night. Thus, there was a case where the Defendant: (a) parked the said vehicle in the three gate gate gate gate and stored the said vehicle at the three gate gate for convenience without any consideration when other vehicles are stored at the same place; (b) on the day before the accident; (c) on the same day, the Defendant did not have any key to the said vehicle; (d) on the ground that the vehicle was parked in the office, and (e) the Defendant did not have any error in the law regarding the vehicle’s duty to maintain and manage the vehicle in question; and (e) there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the vehicle’s duty to maintain and manage the vehicle in question.

The Supreme Court precedents of the lawsuit are not appropriate in this case, unlike the case. The arguments are groundless.

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 Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)