1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court: (a) concluded an employment contract with the Electric Line Authorized K (hereinafter “the network”) on December 6, 201 to carry out the subcontracted construction of the telecommunications base station facilities; (b) concluded an employment contract with N, the owner of the instant vehicle 4.5t truck (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”); (c) upon receiving P’s instructions, L had S drive the instant vehicle with one electric drum on December 29, 201 while driving the instant vehicle at a work site; and (d) determined that S moved the vehicle in front of the instant vehicle, which was installed in the instant vehicle, and stopped in the direction of preventing the boom from leaving the vehicle in front of the instant vehicle (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) by taking into account the boom installed in the instant vehicle, and that the vehicle’s remaining boom was divided into the front part of the instant vehicle during the process of unloading the vehicle in front of the instant vehicle.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules,

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The main text of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “Automobile Accident Compensation Act”) is “a person who operates an automobile for his own sake” shall be deemed to operate the automobile.