The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. According to the circumstances of the accident of this case established by the court below, the non-party 1, who is the driver of the defendant company's ○○ Office, was driving on September 9, 1984, with the permission of the non-party 2, who is the manager of the vehicle, to drive the cargo owned by the defendant, and had the non-party 3, who was his model in Busan, operated the above truck, and had the non-party 3 run the above truck on September 1, 19 of the same year with the driver's Dok-gun National School in Busan, and had the non-party 3 run the above truck on the road of Dok-ri, Dok-ri, which was located in Dok-ri, and had the non-party 1 operated the above truck on the road of this case, and had the non-party 1, who was responsible for driving the truck on the road of this case, to the extent that the non-party 1 was aware of the harm caused by the above accident to the non-party 3's 10-party.

As above, the court below's finding the defendant liable for damages under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is just and there is no misunderstanding of the legal principles of the person who operates an automobile for himself under the above law. The arguments are groundless.

2. The court below erred in rejecting the Defendant’s defense on the ground that, under the premise that the Plaintiff’s free-of-charged the instant accident vehicle and enjoyed its operational benefits, the Plaintiff should be deemed to be different from the ordinary victim who had no relation with the vehicle, the Defendant’s free-of-charged a part of the damages incurred by an accident that occurred during the operation of the vehicle cannot be deemed to conform to the principle of good faith or the principle of equity.

Even if an operator of a vehicle provides the same boarding for the convenience and interest of the passengers on board without any consideration, and even if he/she receives the same for his/her convenience and interest, it is difficult to recognize the identity of the owner of an automobile as referred to in Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act to the passenger on the sole basis of such fact (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2580, Sept. 22, 1987).

However, if it is deemed that imposing liability like a general traffic accident on the perpetrator is very unreasonable in light of the good faith principle or the principle of equity, it would be possible to reduce the amount of compensation.

However, in the case of this case, according to the facts found by the court below, it cannot be said that there is a reason to bear part of the damages incurred by the accident that occurred during the operation, in the case where the plaintiff 1 simply gets a driver's title on the vehicle involved in the accident that he returns to the house at the time of the accident. The court below's decision is justified

3. Although the theory of lawsuit criticizes the purport that there is a misapprehension of legal principles as to the recognition of the labor disability loss ratio of Plaintiff 1 as recognized by the lower court, the method of calculating intermediate interest, and the calculation of interest in arrears, it is not possible to adopt it only as an independent or independent opinion. 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 Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)