(b) Cases where the identity of another person as provided in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is denied;

B. If Gap lent his/her own car to Eul without compensation to Byung, Byung lent his/her car to Byung without compensation, and caused an accident while driving his/her car in shift between Jung and Jung, regardless of whether it is about Eul and Eul, he/she shall be held in the position of a person who operates his/her automobile for himself/herself as provided in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, since he/she has control over the operation of his/her automobile at the time of the accident and has operating profit, and it seems that he/she could have been able to prevent the occurrence of the accident because he/she could have been more specific and direct than the control over the operation of his/her automobile, in the specific degree and state of control over the operation, and therefore, he/she cannot assert that he/she is another person as provided in the same Act, and therefore, he/she cannot be held

According to the judgment of the court below, on October 16, 1984, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-business owner 1 and 3051, the above non-business owner 1 and 6 months from October 16, 1984 to April 16, 1985, under Article 3 and 7 of the General Terms and Conditions for Non-business Motor Vehicles (No. 6), and the insured's liability for damages was paid to the non-business owner 1 and the above non-business owner 1 and the above non-business owner 1 and the defendant paid the above non-business owner 1 and the non-business owner 2's liability for damages under the above non-business owner 1 and the non-business owner 7's liability for damages under the above non-business owner 1 and the non-party 1 and the defendant paid the above non-party 2's liability for damages to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's liability for damages caused by the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 1 and the above business owner 1.

However, according to Article 1 of the above insurance terms and conditions, the defendant insurance company is liable for compensation to the plaintiff because it compensates for losses sustained by the defendant due to the so-called large-scale accident causing the insured's death or injury caused by the accident of a motor vehicle. Thus, even if the defendant agreed to compensate for the legal amount of compensation for non-business motor vehicle under Article 7 of the above insurance terms and conditions, it is merely stipulated that the insured's calculation of the limit of compensation and the amount of insurance money to be paid should be the amount to be paid to the victim by the final judgment, on the premise that the insurance company is liable for compensation as stated in the above terms and conditions, such as the case of establishing the liability for compensation to the victim, and the above terms and conditions do not provide that the above provisions shall be immediately paid to the insured, and it does not affect the conclusion that the final judgment that the plaintiff is liable for compensation between the plaintiff and the victim. Thus, in order to hold the defendant liable for compensation to the plaintiff, an insurance company, the plaintiff should be viewed separately.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant is liable for compensating for damages sustained by the plaintiff, who is the insured, due to the fact that the provision of Article 7 of the above Terms and Conditions was final and conclusive judgment ordering the plaintiff to compensate for damages under the above final and conclusive judgment, shall not be held to be erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the grounds and the grounds

In addition, according to the facts established by the court below, although the plaintiff lent the above automobile to the non-party 1, who is a death village, to the non-party 1, the non-party 1 was lent the above vehicle without compensation from the above son, and the non-party 1 was driving the above vehicle in shift from the above son, and the accident of this case occurred while the non-party 1 was driving the vehicle in shift with the above son. Meanwhile, according to the evidence of the court below, the non-party 1 did not have any relationship with the plaintiff or the above son, and was driving the above son in shift with the above son and without any relationship with the above son, and caused the above accident. According to these facts, the above Gamdong did not have any specific duty to compensate the plaintiff for the above accident, since it did not have any specific duty to compensate the damages caused to the non-party 1, the plaintiff cannot be argued that the above Gamdong was a person who operated the automobile for himself as stipulated in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff is liable to pay insurance money to the above non-party on the premise that the above non-party is legally liable for damages under the above insurance clause is an error affecting the conclusion of the judgment because it did not err in interpreting the general insurance clause of this case or by misapprehending the legal principles of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act or the Illegal Act, which constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings

Therefore, the argument is reasonable, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court, which is the original judgment, to make a new trial and determination, and the judge who is involved in the case is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)