The case is remanded to the Seoul High Court on this part.

1. The court below held that, as long as the defendant's employee's business bus owned by the defendant and the non-party 1 (the age of 15), the non-party 2 (the age of 15) who was the plaintiff's son on the back-side side of Oraltob, could be recognized as deceased, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the above deceased or his parents due to the traffic accident in this case. The above Oraltob owned by the plaintiff 1, his father, who was the above deceased's father, was in the status of operation manager of Oraltoba as above, and the non-party 1, the driver of Oraltoba, as well as the non-party 1, who was the above driver of Oraltoba, should also be considered as the non-party 1's negligence on the part of the plaintiff's father and the non-party 1, who was the above non-party 1's above driver's right to indemnity against the above non-party 1, the above non-party 1's driver's right to indemnity.

2. The owner of a motor vehicle or a person entitled to use a motor vehicle, who is an owner of a motor vehicle or a person holding a right to use the motor vehicle for himself/herself, is obligated to pay considerable attention to the appointment of a driver as well as to the direction and supervision of the motor vehicle. Thus, in cases where the owner of a motor vehicle is responsible for the result of the operation of the motor vehicle, and where the owner of the motor vehicle gets another person to drive the motor vehicle along with the motor vehicle, and the accident occurred as a result of the third party's negligence, if he/she was negligent, the third party liable to compensate for the damage is to take into account the fault of the owner of the motor vehicle in order to fairly share the damage caused by the tort between the perpetrator and the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da5341, May 14, 191; 91Da5341, Nov. 23, 193; 201).

3. In this case, according to the evidence admitted by the court below (in particular, Non-party 1's testimony of the witness of the court of first instance), it can be acknowledged that the deceased Non-party 2, who caused the traffic accident of this case, was driving and having been on his own at ordinary meeting as the owner of the plaintiff 1, and the above deceased Non-party 1, who was his own child, was on his own, and on the date of the traffic accident of this case, the above deceased Non-party 1, who was on his own child, was involved in driving the above Ortoba, and he was also recognized by the court below. Thus, unless there are special circumstances that the above deceased cannot be viewed as a person driving an automobile for himself as prescribed by the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the above deceased's damage amount should be considered as the driver of the above Ortoba in determining the amount of damages for the deceased or the plaintiff 1, and therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to offsetting negligence, which affected the conclusion.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)