1. Although a third party was involved in an accident while driving a motor vehicle without permission, the owner of the motor vehicle bears the responsibility for the accident as an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act in the absence of special circumstances to deem that the control of the owner's operation and the profits from operation have been entirely lost. Whether the driver's operation control and the profits from operation have been lost or not shall be determined by comprehensively assessing the following: (a) the situation in which the vehicle in question is kept and managed by the owner; (b) the situation in which the operation was possible regardless of the owner's intent; (c) the personal relationship between the owner and the driver; (d) the driver's intention to return the motor vehicle; (e) the possibility of the owner's ex post facto approval after the unauthorized Operation; and (e) the awareness of the victim's perception of the unauthorized Operation without permission, and (e) the important factors to determine whether the owner's unauthorized Operation was aware of the unauthorized Operation of the motor vehicle; (e) the victim, the victim,

Even if the owner or the owner knew of the unauthorized Operation, the owner cannot be deemed to have completely lost the control of the operation and the profits from the operation, in a case where there are circumstances likely to harm the unauthorized Operation in light of its operational background and purpose, or where such unauthorized Operation is practically closely related to the driver’s ordinary duties and thus it cannot be ruled out entirely that the owner has fully lost the possibility of approval after the operation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da1072 delivered on July 10, 1998, etc.). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts. A.

E is an owner of Franchisa car (hereinafter referred to as “instant vehicle”).