[손해배상(자)][공1994.5.1.(967),1169]
Requirements for recognizing the user relationship under Article 756 of the Civil Act between the company that entered into the land and the transferee of the vehicle;
In addition to a simple entrustment of the right of a vehicle between a local government-invested company and a local government-invested company, if the local government-invested company and the transferee of the local government-invested vehicle intend to recognize the above relationship between the employer and the transferee of the local government-invested vehicle, if the above transferee is insufficient to recognize the above relationship between the local government-invested company and the transferee of the local government-invested vehicle, it should be recognized that the local government-invested company is in a position to actually direct and supervise the above transferee by transferring the vehicle between the local government-invested company and the transferee of the local government-invested company.
Article 756 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Jung-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Si Fire Industry Ltd.
Daejeon High Court Decision 92Na938 delivered on September 28, 1993
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1 purchased the above vehicle under the name of the non-party 2 with the non-party 1 corporation on November 16, 198 that the non-party 2 would have not been able to purchase the above vehicle under the name of the non-party 1, and the non-party 2 would not have been able to purchase the above vehicle under the non-party 2's name and sell the vehicle under the non-party 1's name to the non-party 1's name and the non-party 2's name on the non-party 9's name and the non-party 1's name on the non-party 2's name on the non-party 1's name on the non-party 1's name on the non-party 2's name on the non-party 9's name on the non-party 1's name on the non-party 1's name on the non-party 2's name on the non-party 1's name.
(2) Even if an employer relationship is acknowledged under Article 756 of the Civil Act on the ground that there exists a mere entrustment of management of a vehicle between a branch owner and a branch owner, it is justifiable to determine that the above transferee was in the position of the above non-party 7, an operator of the vehicle, who is an employee prior to the transfer of the vehicle, and the transferee of the branch owner, in order to recognize the above user relationship, the transferee is insufficient only to take over the branch owner's vehicle between the branch owner owner and the branch owner, and it should be recognized that the branch owner actually is in the position of leading and supervising the above transferee by succeeding the status of the branch owner's land entry contract or concluding a new branch entry contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da10494, Aug. 18, 1992). On the premise of the above opinion, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the liability of the former owner of the vehicle, as well as by misapprehending the legal principles on the owner's direct ownership of the vehicle.
(3) In addition, it is difficult to accept the theory that the court below committed an illegal act of mistake of facts merely criticizes the preparation of evidence and fact-finding, which are all the matters of the court below's exclusive authority, without any cadastral map, as to which part of the court below's fact-finding was erroneous.
(4) Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.
Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)