[손해배상(자)][미간행]
[1] The meaning of "a person who operates an automobile for his own sake" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and "a person who operates an automobile for his own sake", and in the case where one of multiple operators of the same automobile has suffered damage from the accident of the relevant automobile, whether the other operator can assert that he is another person under Article 3 of the same Act (affirmative with qualification)
[2] The case holding that in a case where the deceased borrowed a vehicle from his de facto spouse who is the owner of the vehicle for his own work and let the deceased drive it close to the deceased, and he was affected by a traffic accident, the deceased cannot claim that it constitutes a "other person" under Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act as it constitutes an operator under the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act
[1] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act / [2] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da46613 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2668), Supreme Court Decision 97Da12884 delivered on August 29, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2861), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da32840 delivered on October 6, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 2293) Supreme Court Decision 200Da66393 Delivered on November 30, 201 (Gong2002Da51654 delivered on December 10, 202) (Gong3599)
Lee-han et al. (Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 2003Na5213 delivered on January 30, 2004
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Fact-finding and judgment of the court below
On the other hand, the court below determined that, even if the above vehicle was operated by the deceased's non-party 3's non-party 1, it did not know that the above vehicle was operated by the deceased's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1.
2. Judgment of the Supreme Court
However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.
Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that "the person who operates an automobile for his own sake" refers to the person who is in a position as a responsible subject to the control of the operation of the automobile and to enjoy the benefit therefrom. In this case, the control of the operation is not limited to the actual control, but also includes the case where it can be deemed that there is a possibility of indirect control or control by social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da36382 delivered on October 27, 1998). "other person" under Article 3 of the same Act refers to the person other than the driver of the automobile for his own sake and the driver of the automobile. Thus, even if one of the operators who exist multiple times for the same automobile sustains damage from the accident, it cannot be argued that the operator is another person under Article 3 of the Act. However, it can only be argued that the control of the operation of the operator who suffered the accident and the profits of the other party are more than those of the accident, and it can only be argued that there is a possibility that the other party can prevent the accident.
As recognized by the court below, if the deceased borrowed a car from the exclusive heat, which is the de facto spouse, for his own official work, and the accident in this case occurred after having him drive the car close to himself, the deceased is an operator under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act as a person who actually controls the operation of the vehicle at the time of the accident and has the operating profit, and the deceased is an operator under the Motor Vehicle Compensation Act. This is merely a third party who is not the deceased's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's exclusive-use position at the request of the deceased, and it cannot be viewed that the vehicle's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's exclusive-use position at the time of the accident in this case.
Nevertheless, the court below held that the deceased can assert that he is another person against dedicated heat or the defendant, solely based on its stated reasoning. This is an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on "operator" or "other person" under Article 3 of the above Act.
3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)