According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that: (a) the defendant was located in a remote area located in the Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, a public school established and operated by the defendant; (b) the number of teachers and staff and students was caused many obstacles to the commuting of the above school; and (c) the non-party 1 agreed to use the accident bus for the commuting of the above school teachers and staff and students without the defendant's consent; (d) the above bus was registered in the above school name with the above school name and entered into the comprehensive car insurance policy for the damages of the above school; and (e) the non-party 1 was operated by the non-party 1 in the name of the above school for the purpose of ensuring that the non-party 1 was operating the above passenger bus under the name of the above school for his own interest and the non-party 1 was not an owner of the above school; and (e) the non-party 1 was operated under the name of the above school's own bus operation of the above school for his own interest.

However, according to the facts of the judgment of the court below and the testimony of the non-party 2 of the witness cited by the court below, the original bus is registered in the register of automobile and the purchase of insurance in the name of ○○, middle and high school under the defendant's jurisdiction, and was used exclusively for the above school, and the above school's name was considerably written in the front of the above bus and it was easily known that it was the above school's vehicle. The above school's authority supervised the above school's vehicle operation by the management and operation of the vehicle, and it was known that the above bus was parked in the above school except for the above school. Thus, if the facts are the same, the defendant is objectively in a position to control and manage the operation of the above bus, it shall be deemed that the defendant constitutes a person who operates the automobile for himself under Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Recognizing the facts of the judgment of the court below and the above decision is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and the legal principles as to the person who operates an automobile for himself as provided in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)