In the event that the driver and the driver of the vehicle cause an accident that the vehicle is operated while playing in the future of the borrower, whether the borrower is responsible under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

If the driver and the driver of a vehicle play a kind of motor vehicle with friendship and drinking it, causing an accident while driving the motor vehicle or its manager and the accident occurred during the night by the proposal of the person who died of the accident, this operation cannot be deemed to be for the owner objectively or externally, and therefore, the owner is not liable under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da1987 delivered on February 28, 1978, 80Da2973 Delivered on March 10, 1981

Park Ho-do et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Attorney Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 83Na585 delivered on March 16, 1984

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the ground of the judgment below, Nonparty 1 obtained a driver's license for the above 1981.3.1, and was employed by the above non-party 1 on December 15, 1981 as well as his/her driver's license for the above 0-day truck, and operated the above 7-day truck alternate alternately with the above 8-day driver's license. Although the above truck was owned by the defendant company, the above 1-day Kim Jong-sik was shut down in the defendant company, and the above 2-day truck was parked at the above 0-day office or parking lot of the defendant company without any surveillance on the side of the above 1-day office, if it was found that the above 1-day truck was operated by the non-party 2, the above 1-day driver's license for the above 1-day truck without any instruction on the 1-day driver's license for the above 1-day truck, the above 1-day driver's license for the above 1-day truck.

2. As seen in the above facts, the fall accident of the truck of this case, as seen above, was caused by Nonparty 1 to operate the truck of this case, which is the borrower, or the non-party 1's manager, while playing in kind with his friendship, and was in the course of drat during the night by the proposal of the network gambling day, so this operation cannot be deemed objectively or externally for the defendant who is the owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da2973 and 77Da1987, Feb. 28, 1978). Thus, the judgment of the court below is without merit since it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the operation of a motor vehicle for himself as stipulated in Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act, and it affected the conclusion of the judgment, which clearly affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges to reverse and remand the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)