[손해배상청구사건][하집1985(1),100]
Whether a person who rents and operates a vehicle constitutes another person under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.
If one of the members of the kind of friendship rents a vehicle of another and operates the vehicle of another, all the members of the kind of friendship who leased the said vehicle fall under the person who operated the vehicle for himself under the Automobile Damage Compensation Act and cannot claim compensation for the damage caused by the said operation against the owner of the automobile.
Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law No. 754, 781, April 23, 1985)
Plaintiff 1 and three others
Defendant 1 and one other
Msan District Court (83 Gohap898)
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 1 36,017,645 won, 34,017,645 won, 23,678,430 won, and 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the soar to the full payment system.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in the first and second instances.
The above Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed only (the plaintiff extended the purport of the claim to the court for the first time).
On May 15, 1983, the non-party 1 driven the automobile of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "automobile of this case") around 18:15 on May 15, 1983, and the non-party 1 passed a left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-on 6 km located in the Balyang-gun Yannam-gun, the Balyang-gun, the Balyang-gun, the Mannam-gun, the Balyang-gun, the Mannam-gun, the Man-gun, the Mannam-gun, the Man-gun, the Man-gun, the Man-gun, the Man-gun, and the withdrawal of the Man-dong measures, are sickly moving back to the center line, making the above vehicle go beyond the left-hand side of the road, leading the non-party 2 who was on the above vehicle of this case, and there is no dispute between the plaintiffs' 1 and the defendant 2.
The plaintiffs asserted that they are owners on the vehicle register of this case who are operating automobiles for their own sake as stipulated in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and therefore, they are responsible for compensating for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs in relation to the above deceased and their wife and children due to the above accident. Thus, in full view of the records of Nos. 1 through 4 and part of Non-Party 1's testimony (excluding parts not trusted in the front and rear), Defendant 1 sold the automobile of this case to Defendant 2 on March 6, 1983 and delivered the automobile of this case to Defendant 2 by April 5 of the same year, and delivered the vehicle of this case to Defendant 2, and the fact that the vehicle of this case was delivered a document necessary for the registration of transfer to the above deceased and his wife and children, it cannot be viewed that the above plaintiffs' automobile of this case was operated under the premise that the above defendant 1 cannot be viewed as being in violation of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act's evidence No. 8-1 and No. 2 of this case's automobile accident compensation.
Since Defendant 2 is the substantive right holder who directly occupies and manages the instant vehicle, and is operating an automobile for his own sake under the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act, he asserts that he is responsible for compensating for the lost profit amount of KRW 103,392,153 and consolation money suffered by the plaintiffs who are the above deceased and their wife and children due to the above accident. Thus, according to the above facts of recognition, Defendant 2 is the substantive owner of the said vehicle, but in full view of Nonparty 1’s testimony and arguments, Nonparty 2’s testimony (excluding the part which is not trust) as well as the whole purport of oral argument, Nonparty 1 who driven the instant vehicle at the time of the above accident is dismissed as a member of the same kind of friendship as the above deceased and Nonparty 3, and thus, Nonparty 1 did not have any reason to dismiss the said vehicle from the above judgment of the court below because he did not have any reason to believe that it did not constitute the above part of the Defendant 2’s automobile accident compensation, which was contrary to the above judgment of the court below.
Judges Lee Dong-soo (Presiding Judge)