(b) A case which recognized the automobile rental company as an automobile operator under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act in case where an accident occurred while driving a motor vehicle in violation of the automobile rental agreement;

(b) A case which recognized the automobile rental company as an automobile operator under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act in case where an accident occurred while driving a motor vehicle in violation of the automobile rental agreement;

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

A. On the first ground for appeal

The court below presumed that the plaintiff 1 did not fasten the safety belt at the time of the accident that the part and the degree of the injury in this case were presumed to have been presumed to have not been fastened by the safety belt at the time of the accident, and there is no error of law such as a theory of litigation in making a offsetting 70% of the negligence on the ground of the plaintiff's negligence by neglecting his act of driving with his well-known knowledge while neglecting his act of driving. Thus, all arguments are without merit.

B. On the second ground for appeal

The court below found that the plaintiff 1 obtained the opening of an adult male with general urban labor ability from the date of the accident of this case to the date of the conclusion of the oral argument of the court below. The plaintiff 1 is a person who assists in the use, bath, escape, and physical change for the life period of five years, and at least an adult with urban daily labor ability. The contents of the above title include the above plaintiff 24 hours a day, but it does not require continuous work for 24 hours a day, but it is sufficient for 1 adult male with ordinary urban labor ability as an ordinary urban labor ability. In fact, it is sufficient that the above plaintiff 1 received the opening of an adult male male from the date of the accident of this case to the date of the conclusion of the oral argument of the court below, and it cannot be said that there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of the urban wages of an adult male male as the opening of the above plaintiff 1. It is also not reasonable that the precedents of this case are different from this case.

C. On the third ground for appeal

There is no error in the calculation of consolation money in the judgment below, and there is no ground for discussion.

2. We examine the grounds of incidental appeal by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

A. On the first ground for appeal

The court below held that the plaintiff 1 was 1 and 3's non-party 1 and the plaintiff 1 was 1 and 9's non-party 1 and the plaintiff 1 was 9's non-party 1 and the plaintiff 1 was 9's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the plaintiff 1 was 1's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's accident.

B. On the second ground for appeal

Even when considering all the circumstances such as the theory of lawsuit, it cannot be said that the above plaintiff's negligence ratio recognized by the court below is too low, and there is no reason to discuss.

3. Accordingly, all appeals by the plaintiffs and appeals by the defendant joining the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)