In a case where a vehicle is delivered to a repair business operator for the purpose of making a trial run for the determination of the purchase price in addition to the repair of the vehicle, the relationship of ownership (=joint ownership)

In a case where an owner of a motor vehicle delivered the motor vehicle to a repair business operator, not simply delivered the motor vehicle to the repair business operator, but also delivered the motor vehicle to enable him/her to operate the motor vehicle for the purpose of determining the purchase price, with the consent of him/her to regard the motor vehicle as operating the motor vehicle for the purpose of his/her purchase price, and caused an accident while driving the motor vehicle for the purpose of purchase of parts and amusement, the owner of the motor vehicle permits him/her to drive the motor vehicle for performance test in addition to driving the motor vehicle to the extent necessary for the repair of the motor vehicle within the scope of the motor vehicle, and it can be easily anticipated that the motor vehicle can be used for the personal purpose of the repair business operator without driving the motor vehicle for the purpose of the repair business or the purchase price decision, so it is insufficient to readily conclude that the owner who is confirmed to have a general, abstract control, and operational interest in the motor vehicle at the time of the accident has completely lost the operation control or the operation profit. Rather, the owner has the operation control or the operation profit.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Meu29136 Decided April 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 1065) Supreme Court Decision 92Da21487 Decided September 8, 1992 (Gong1992, 2848) Supreme Court Decision 92Da40167 Decided February 9, 1993 (Gong193, 950)

El District Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Dong-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Hun-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Byung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 95Na8629 delivered on February 7, 1996

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on November 24, 1992, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant repaired a small passenger car owned by the defendant to Nonparty 1, who is the repairer, around November 24, 1992, and entrusted him with a regular inspection. The above non-party 1 repaired the above Gohap on November 26, 1994 and inspected it again, and tried to exchange it because the above Gohap did not properly charge it, but it does not meet the standards. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the above repairer was difficult to repair the vehicle for the above repairer to exchange the Gohap's repairer's repairer at around 21:30 on the same day, on the premise that it was difficult for the above repairer to recognize that the above repairer's claim for the repairer's repairer's repairer's repairer's repairer's repairer's repairer's repairer's repairer's repairer's repairer's repairer's repairer's repairer.

In light of the records, comparison and examination of relevant evidence, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant requested the above non-party 1 to repair and conduct regular inspections of the part of the trial operation of the above non-party 1 on November 24, 1992, and rejected the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's argument that the defendant sold the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1, but did not make a transfer registration.

However, in full view of Gap evidence 3-12, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, which was not rejected by the court below, Eul evidence 1-4, the above non-party 1 had the intention to purchase the above vehicle because it is essential for the vehicle of the same kind as the above van operated by the automobile repair business. On November 24, 1992, the defendant, who is a customer who is frequently in the ordinary automobile repair business office, requested the above van repair and regular inspection to purchase the above van. Thus, the defendant would decide whether to sell the above Gohap after being repaired and regular inspection, and first, the above non-party 1 driven the above Gohap and decided the price after being driven by the above Gohap Eul, and the above non-party 1 knew that the above Gohap 1 was a new job of the above Gohap for the purpose of exchange of the above Gohap with the plaintiff's 2,000 for the purpose of exchange of the above van's van.

In general, when a vehicle is delivered to a repair business operator for the repair of a motor vehicle, the right to control the operation of the motor vehicle during the repair period is not the owner of the motor vehicle, unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da21487, Sept. 8, 1992; 89Meu29136, Apr. 13, 1990).

However, as seen above, the defendant does not simply deliver the above van to the above non-party 1, who is a motor vehicle repairer, for the repair of the above van, but has been notified by the above non-party 1 of his intention to purchase the above van, and in order to allow him to operate the above van for the purpose of determining the purchase price, he also delivered the above van to allow him to do so. If the above non-party 1 was in operation for the purpose of his amusement in addition to the purpose of purchasing parts to repair the above vehicle at the time of the accident, the above non-party 1, who is the motor vehicle repairer, for the purpose of the performance test to determine the purchase price, he is allowed to drive the above van within the extent necessary for the repair of the above van, so it can be easily concluded that the above repairer has a general or abstract profit from the operation of the above non-party 1, which is the owner or the above non-party 1's non-party 1's operation control.

Therefore, the court below's decision merely accepted the above non-party 1 and accepted the regular inspection, and the defendant recognized that the above van was caused by the accident during the course of the accident in order to purchase the cab necessary for the above van repair, and concluded that the defendant was not in the status of the above van operator at the time of the accident in this case, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all deliberation or by misapprehending the legal principles on the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)