Where a motor vehicle, the maintenance hole of which is entrusted, is driven without permission after being on duty, the victim and the user who has taken the vehicle with the knowledge of the situation.

In such a case, the above vehicle operation of the maintenance service company cannot be viewed as an employee of the employer or operation for the employer, in relation to the victim who boarded the above vehicle with the knowledge of the above circumstances. Thus, the above vehicle operation of the maintenance service company cannot be held liable to the user of the maintenance service.

Article 756 of the Civil Code, Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Defendant 1 and one other

Chuncheon District Court's original branch court (80 Ghana95)

1. The part against Plaintiff 1 ordering payment under the original judgment shall be revoked.

2. Defendant 2 shall pay to Plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 1,00,000 and an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from January 12, 1980 to the full payment.

3. The remaining appeals by Plaintiff 1 against Defendant 2, the appeal by Defendant 1 against Defendant 1, and the appeal by the remaining Plaintiffs against the Defendants are dismissed, respectively.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs incurred between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 are four minutes, and the remainder is borne by the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1, and the costs of appeal against the plaintiff 1 and the remaining defendants are borne by the defendant 1, and the costs of appeal against the plaintiff 1 and the remaining costs of appeal against the defendants are borne by the plaintiffs.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 1 an amount of KRW 600,00,000, KRW 300,000 per annum from January 12, 1980 to the full payment system. The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 an amount of KRW 300,00 per annum 5% per annum from January 12, 1980 to the full payment system.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution

The part against Defendant 1 in the original judgment and the part against the Plaintiffs against Defendant 2 shall be revoked.

Defendant 1 shall pay to Plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 9,137,348, and KRW 600,00, KRW 300,00 for each of the above amounts to Plaintiff 3,4, and KRW 500 per annum from January 12, 1980 to the full payment system, and Defendant 2 shall pay to Plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 4,137,348, KRW 300 for each of the above amounts to Plaintiff 3,4, and KRW 300,00 for each of the above amounts to Plaintiff 3,4, and KRW 50 per annum from January 12, 1980 to the full payment system.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances, and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant 2

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

Defendant 2 is the head of the maintenance team of the main city (mutual omitted number omitted) industrial company located in the main city (mutually omitted), which is operated by Defendant 1, around 19:00 on January 12, 1980, and the defendant is the owner of the non-party 1's (vehicle number omitted) who was entrusted the maintenance work to the above maintenance factory, and operated the fare staff and the plaintiff 1 on the new Cat or car under his custody, for the interest of the main city in Gangwon-do, for the interest of the interest industry, and operated to the interest center in the interest industry located in the interest industry located in the interest industry of Gangwon-do. The defendant 2 suffered from the plaintiff 2's negligence on the part of the main city in the 23:0 day after drinking alcohol from the main city in the 10th century, and the 120th Do 120 Do e.g., the plaintiff 2 was responsible for damages caused by the plaintiff 1's above fault on the part of the defendant 2 and his family members.

On the other hand, in full view of the whole purport of the pleading as a result of the record verification conducted by the court below, although the above defendant was well aware of the fact that driving of the above vehicle is not owned by the defendant, the plaintiff 1, as a maintenance company, was led to the above vehicle without permission by the above defendant in the maintenance factory, and recommended the above plaintiff as d'b or defective personnel, who was in duty, or relative with the above plaintiff, was on board the above vehicle, and the above plaintiff 1 was on a showing side. The above plaintiff 1 was on board the above vehicle at the d'b or defective level. The above plaintiff 1 was on the d'b or defective level. The above plaintiff 1 was on board the above d'b or galking of the above defendant and the above gals, who must operate the vehicle and return home, and was on duty due to the above defendant's excessive speed and galle, etc. of the above defendant 2. Thus, the above plaintiff's negligence is one of the above causes and expansion of damages.

(b) Damages;

(1) Estimated import loss

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1 (No. 1), 2-1, 2 (Simplified Life Table and Details), 3-1, 2, 8-1, 2 (each construction product is marked and content), and 5-1, 5 (written request) of the above evidence No. 3-1, 3-2, and 3-2 of the above evidence No. 8-2, and the physical appraisal result and the whole purport of oral argument, although the plaintiff 1 was a male of March 18, 1942, and his age's average remaining life of the Republic of Korea was 36 years, and the above plaintiff suffered the above injury and suffered the above injury to the original hospital, etc. until August 20, 1980, there was no dispute over the above facts that the average labor ability was reduced by 12 percent between the left, the left, and the second 5-day Urban Wage of 190 days, and the urban wage of 30-day Urban Wage of 190 days as of 197.4 days.

Therefore, the above plaintiff can obtain the income equivalent to the daily wage from at least 12,750 won per month for seven months from January 12, 1980, when the above accident occurred to August 11, 1980, and the total amount of income of 122,750 won (gold 4,910 won x 25) during the above period of hospital treatment from January 12, 198, and then 17 years from August 12, 198 to March 17, 198 (211 months), 30,320 won per month in proportion to the degree of loss of labor, 205, 208, 205, 208, 205, 306, 205, 205, 208, 205, 306, 205, 208, 205, 208, 206, 305, 285, 106, 25, 25, 28, 6, 206, 20.

(2) Medical expenses, etc.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Simplified Tax Invoice), 5 (Written Claim), 6-1 through 14 (each receipt) of the above evidence Nos. 6-1 and 6-14 (each receipt) and the results of the appraiser's appraisal at the court below and the appraiser's appraisal at the above time, the plaintiff Nos. 1 purchased the above drugs from the above accident to Jan. 16, 1980, respectively, from (title omitted) to Aug. 20 of the same year, and received hospital treatment expenses from the original hospital during the period from Aug. 20 of the same year to the hospital (title omitted), and then 173,000 won and 4,098,080 won were contributed to the original hospital, and since the plaintiff purchased the above drugs at the general pharmacy at the time of entrance at the original hospital and used them to remove the above drugs to the left-hand 27,000 won, the plaintiff could receive the above 5,0700 Y-27,00 won from the above surgery.

(3) Fruits offsetting

Therefore, the sum of the damages of KRW 3,260,118 and the damages of KRW 5,077,230 including the damages of KRW 5,337,348 as seen above and the damages of KRW 8,337,348, supra, shall be deemed as property damages suffered by Plaintiff 1 due to the above accident. Considering the above Plaintiff’s negligence, Defendant 2 is deemed reasonable to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 5,500,000 among them.

(4) Consolation money

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff 1 suffered from the above accident and received hospital treatment for a long time after suffering from the above accident, and that the plaintiff's wife, parent, and other plaintiffs, who are the above plaintiff's wife, parent, and father, suffered from severe mental pain, the above defendant has a duty to consolation money. As to the amount of money, the above defendant is obligated to pay 500,000 won as consolation money to the plaintiff 1, 300,000 won, 30,000 won as consolation money to the plaintiff 2,3,4,500 won, and 10,000 won for each of them to the plaintiff 3, 4, and 5.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' claim against defendant 1

Defendant 1 is a person operating a motor vehicle maintenance business at the Hanju-si (Seong-si Parcel Number omitted), and Defendant 2, the head of the above industrial maintenance team, was entrusted to the above industrial maintenance factory on January 12, 1980, operated a new car or a motor vehicle owned by Nonparty 1 (motor vehicle number omitted), who was in his custody at the above maintenance plant on January 12, 1980, and boarded 4 of the plaintiff 1 et al. and went to the head of Kusung-gun-gun in Gangwon-do, for the interest of Hansung-gun-gun, he was going to go to the head of Kusung-gun-gun. At around 23:00 on the same day, he was going to go to the head of Kusung-gun-gun, the 10-do Do 120-do Do Do Do 120-do Do 120 km-do 50 km, and there was no dispute between the plaintiff's parent and the plaintiff's 2.

원고들 소송대리인은, 위 사고는 피고 1의 피용자인 피고 2가 위 차량을 시운전하던 도중 운전과실로 인하여 발생한 사고이므로 피고 1은 피고 2의 사용자로서 또는 자기를 위하여 차량을 운행하는 자로서 위 사고로 인하여 원고들이 입은 손해를 피고 2와 각자 배상할 책임이 있다고 주장하고 피고 1은 이를 다투므로 살펴보건대, 피고 2가 위 차량을 시운전하던 도중 사고가 발생하였다는 주장에 부합되는 원심에서 시행한 기록 검증결과의 일부는 다음 증거들에 비추어 이를 믿지 아니하고 달리 이를 인정할 자료가 없고 오히려 원심증인 소외 3, 4의 각 증언과 당심증인 소외 5의 증언 및 위 기록검증결과(앞에서 믿지아니하는 부분 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고 2는 피고 1 경영의 정비공장 하체반장으로서 정비공은 공장내외를 불문하고 정비의뢰를 받은 차량의 운행을 할 수 없게 되어 있음에도 불구하고 브레이크에 이상이 있다 하여 정비의뢰를 해온 소외 1 소유의 (차량번호 생략) 차량이 운전대에 키가 그대로 꽂혀 있음을 이용하여 퇴근시간이 지난 후에 감독자와 경비원의 눈을 피하여 위 차를 무단히 운행하고 나와서 다른 정비공들과 원고 1에게 함께 드라이브나 할 겸 놀러가자고 권유하여 위 차에 탑승시킨 후 흥업면까지 가게 되었고 흥업면 양조장에서 막걸리, 맥주 등을 마시고 놀다가 되돌아오던중, 위 다툼없는 사실에서 본 바와 같이 120도의 우회전 커브지점을 시속 50킬로미터의 속력으로 질주해 가다가 전방주시 태만과 운전미숙으로 핸들조작을 잘못하여 도로 좌측변의 가로수를 충격함으로써 위 사고가 발생하게 된 사실, 원고 1은 피고 2가 같은 마을에 사는 동생뻘 되는 사람으로서 피고 1 경영의 위 자동차정비공장의 정비공이며 위 정비공장에서의 일을 끝내고 놀러가기 위하여 위 차량을 무단히 운전하는 사정 등을 알고 드라이브 겸 놀러가기 위하여 위 차량에 승차한 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고 위 인정을 달리할 아무런 자료가 없는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 피고 2의 위와 같은 차량운행은 위와 같은 사정을 알고 위 차에 탑승한 원고 1에 대한 관계에 있어서는 피고 1의 피용자로서 그 사무집행에 관한 것이라거나 피고 1을 위한 운행이라고는 볼 수 없다고 할 것이므로 피고 1이 위 차량운행에 관하여 피고 2의 사용자 또는 자동차손해배상법 제3조 소정의 자기를 위하여 차량을 운행하는 자의 지위에 있음을 전제로 한 원고들의 청구는 더 나아가 살펴볼 필요없이 그 이유가 없다고 하겠다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 2 is liable to pay to Plaintiff 1 the above property damage amounting to KRW 6,00,000, KRW 500,000, KRW 500,000, and KRW 300,000, KRW 3000, KRW 4,000, and KRW 500, and KRW 50,000, respectively, for each of the above money to Plaintiff 2 as the date of the tort, from January 12, 1980, which was the date of the above tort, to the full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim against Defendant 2 is justified within the above scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim against Defendant 1 and the provisional execution against the plaintiff 1 are dismissed because there is no reason to do so. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that partially concluded against the plaintiff 1 is erroneous, and the remainder of the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 2 and Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act is dismissed as well as the provisional execution against the plaintiff 9 of the same Act.

Judge Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)