[보험금][집35(1)민,27;공1987.3.1.(795),306]
Whether a person who operates an automobile for himself/herself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act can be deemed to be a person who operates an automobile for his/her own sake, in cases where the transportation of the marriage, etc. has occurred to the place of marriage by giving his/her automobile to his/her driver's license, instead of the marriage congratulations.
In a case where the number of drivers of an automobile owned by himself/herself has been granted to the married couple instead of a marriage congratulatory, and by providing his/her family members and the number of drivers to transport the automobile to the wedding place until the marriage wedding place, and caused the accident, barring any special circumstance, the driver's control and the profits from the operation of the automobile are still limited to the owner of the said automobile. Therefore, it cannot be viewed as a person operating the automobile for himself/herself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act solely on the ground that the married owner used the said automobile. Moreover, it cannot be viewed as a person who uses the automobile or manages the automobile with the consent of the insured as stipulated in the comprehensive automobile insurance terms and conditions.
Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Daegu High Court Decision 86Na207 delivered on July 8, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In a case where a person who has an automobile owned by him/her, instead of a marriage axis, has been granted his/her automobile to the married couple, and the number of his/her family members and the number of his/her drivers to transport the vehicle to the wedding place, so if the driver was involved in the accident and the driver was involved in the operation of the vehicle, barring any special circumstance, the driver's control and the profits from the operation of the vehicle shall still be limited to the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the mere fact that the mixed owner used the vehicle in question cannot be viewed as a person who operates the automobile for himself/herself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and it cannot be viewed as a person who uses or manages the vehicle with the consent of the registered insured under the General Terms and Conditions
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the accident of this case was owned by the non-party 1, who was merely the plaintiff's wife, and was driven and managed in his own automobile register with his wife, and that the non-party 1, who was the non-party 6's wife, was raised the marriage awareness of the non-party 3 at the Seoul Sejong Sejong Memorial Memorial Hall, instead of paying marriage congratulatory money, he issued the above automobile to the non-party 2 and his family and the non-party 4, who was carrying the above wedding hall from Daegu to the above wedding hall, and that the non-party 4 provided the above automobile with 40 passengers, including the victims of this case, and paid the accident of this case. Accordingly, the court below's judgment is just in holding that the non-party 2's operation control and profit is still owned by the plaintiff and the non-party 1, who is the non-party 2, who is his wife's wife, and it does not constitute the non-party 2's operation manager or the non-party 2's agent.
The assertion is groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)