[2] The case holding that the owner of a motor vehicle is jointly controlling the operation of a motor vehicle with a repair business operator, in case where his employee not only caused the repair of the motor vehicle but also assisted and interfered with the replacement of parts without leaving the repair business of the motor vehicle to the repair business operator, and the replacement work at the last stage of the said replacement work is carried out by the repair business operator's request

[2] The case holding that the owner of a motor vehicle is jointly controlling the operation of a motor vehicle with a repair business operator, in case where his employee not only caused the repair of the motor vehicle but also assisted and interfered with the replacement of parts without leaving the repair business of the motor vehicle to the repair business operator, and the replacement work at the last stage of the said replacement work is carried out by the repair business operator's request

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1 was an employee of the non-party 1’s new school juristic person (hereinafter “Defendant 2’s private teaching institute”)’s motion to suspend the above work of the plaintiff 1’s bus stuffing engine or to repair the plaintiff 5Na810 on September 196 before the private teaching institute owned by the defendant 1, and that the non-party 1 was responsible for the above work of replacing the plaintiff 1’s bus stack with the non-party 1’s order to stop the work of the plaintiff 1’s bus stuffing engine, and that the non-party 1 was jointly and severally responsible for the above work of replacing the plaintiff 1’s bus stacking with the non-party 2’s order to remove the plaintiff 1’s bus stuffing engine at the time of the above accident, and that the non-party 1 was jointly and severally responsible for the above work of replacing the plaintiff 1’s bus stack with the non-party 1’s order.

2. As to the ground of appeal by the plaintiff Park Jong-soo and Park Jong-ok and the ground of appeal by the defendant 1

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, comparative negligence in tort is to be considered in light of the principle of equity or good faith when determining the amount of compensation for the victim's negligence. In applying comparative negligence in tort, the scope of compensation is to be determined in consideration of all the circumstances such as the tortfeasor and victim's intentional or negligent degree, occurrence of illegal act, and expansion of damages. However, fact finding or determining the rate of comparative negligence is within the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is clearly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da11440, Sept. 4, 1998; 98Da56416, May 25, 1999; 98Da50586, Jan. 21, 200). Examining the records, it is reasonable for the court below to consider the rate of negligence in the plaintiff Park Jong-young good faith as 60% on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and it is not deemed unreasonable in the principle of equity.

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Driving Schools

The entrustment of the repair of a motor vehicle to a motor vehicle repair business operator for all works related to the repair of a motor vehicle. This includes the act of driving within the scope necessary for the repair or the trial operation. Since the owner of a motor vehicle requests the repair business operator to deliver a motor vehicle to the repair business operator, he/she shall not have the right to manage and control the motor vehicle until it is delivered again after the completion of the repair. Unless special circumstances exist to deem that the owner of a motor vehicle does not completely lose the operation control and the operational profit at the time of the accident during the repair, the right to control the operation of the motor vehicle is limited to the repair business operator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu29136, Apr. 13, 190; 9Da5024, Dec. 28, 1999).

However, as acknowledged by the court below, at the time of the accident in this case, the above non-party 1 left the bus repair to Defendant 1 while carrying the above bus's speed, and opened the bus's boat replacement work so that Defendant 1 and the plaintiff boom-type vessels can carry the bus's enjoying pipe replacement work, and Defendant 1 et al. do not order the above bus's enjoying pipe replacement work during the operation of the bus in order to make the above bus's enjoying pipe replacement work so that the above non-party 1 et al. do not al., and it is justified that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the replacement of the above bus's operation control and profit in order to discharge the air in the above enjoying pipe at the request of Defendant 1, and it constitutes a case where the above private teaching institute, the owner of the above bus, does not lose the operation control of the bus at the time of the accident in this case, and it is not a case where the non-party 1 et al. loses the operation control of the bus in this case.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. Of the costs of appeal, the part arising between Plaintiff Park Jong-young and the Defendants is assessed against each party. The part arising between Plaintiff Park Jong-young, Park Jin-hee and the Defendants is assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)