[1] Whether an owner of a motor vehicle bears the responsibility for an accident during a third party's unauthorized driving as an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (affirmative in principle), and the standard for determining whether the owner's control of operation and the loss of profits from operation is attributable to the owner of the motor vehicle

[2] In a case where Gap, an owner of a motor vehicle, was entrusted with the use and management of the motor vehicle to Eul, but Eul et al., left the key of the motor vehicle located in the bank of other Eul's parents at night and caused an accident while driving a motor vehicle with static, etc. on board, and thereby caused an accident, the case holding that Gap and Eul cannot be deemed to have completely lost their operation control and operation profit at the time of the accident, and therefore Eul and Eul shall be held liable as an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[1] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act / [2] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da1072 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2075)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Ratee, Attorneys Go Il-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2016Na50839 decided March 28, 2017

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gangnam Branch Branch Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Although a third party was involved in an accident while driving a motor vehicle without permission, the owner of the motor vehicle shall assume 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 owner's control and profit from the operation were completely lost. Whether the driver's control and profit from operation should be determined by comprehensively assessing various and objective and external circumstances, such as the situation of keeping and managing ordinary motor vehicles or their keys, personal relations between the owner and the driver, the driver's intention to return the motor vehicle, the possibility of giving back the driver's consent after the unauthorized operation, the awareness of the victim's perception of the unauthorized operation, etc. In particular, if the victim was a person who was a driver of the motor vehicle without permission, the existence of the owner's knowledge of the illegal operation becomes an important factor to determine whether the owner's control and profit from the operation of the motor vehicle were lost. However, it can be determined that the owner could not be determined entirely because it is closely related to the situation of 197 p.m.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.

A. Nonparty 1, as the owner of the (vehicle No. omitted), is the owner of the (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), Nonparty 2, who is the subject of the instant vehicle, entrusted the use and management of the instant vehicle to Nonparty 2. Nonparty 3 is a child of Nonparty 2.

B. On March 31, 2012, Nonparty 3 cut the key of the instant vehicle, which was flicked by Nonparty 2’s parents at night, and her flicked Nonparty 4 by phone called from Nonparty 4, and her flicked to Nonparty 4. In addition, Nonparty 3, including Nonparty 4 and Plaintiff 1, who was gathered at the place, her flicked on the instant vehicle, again her flicked the said vehicle on the glick beach at the East Sea, and her flicked the alcohol on the gleep Sea. After which Nonparty 3 flicked the instant vehicle on the road that was driven and returned to her house (hereinafter “the instant accident”). The Plaintiff 1, who was on board the instant vehicle due to the instant accident, suffered injury, such as flicking the blick at around six weeks treatment.

C. On June 201, Nonparty 3: (a) stolen her friendship and other person’s stobane; (b) was suspended from indictment at the Gangnam Branch Office; (c) was placed on probation for six months at the Gangnam Branch Office; and (d) was committed as a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents by causing an accident during the probation period; and (c) was subject to a disposition that is irrelevant to the authority of prosecution.

3. We examine these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

A. Nonparty 1, the owner of the instant motor vehicle, and Nonparty 2 delegated the use and management of the instant motor vehicle by him, are liable for the instant accident as an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the operation control and operation profit of the instant motor vehicle was entirely lost at the time of the instant accident.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances revealed from the aforementioned factual basis, i.e., the situation leading up to the unauthorized Operation of the instant motor vehicle by Nonparty 3, namely, the time spent on the illegal Operation, in particular the owner and the driver’s personal relation, the storage and management status of the instant motor vehicle and its keys, the driver’s intention to return the motor vehicle, and the possibility of the owner’s ex post approval after the unauthorized Operation, it is difficult to view that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 completely lost the operation control and the operating profit at the time of

① Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 2 are the mother-and-child relationship. ② Nonparty 3 was able to drive the instant vehicle immediately by inserting the key of the instant vehicle in hand before the instant accident occurred. Nonparty 2 appears to have neglected Nonparty 3’s management without any special management, despite the fact that Nonparty 3 had had the power to drive the instant vehicle, and the key thereof. ③ At the time of the instant accident, Nonparty 3 was driving the instant vehicle and returned to the house, and thus, it is apparent that Nonparty 3 was able to have expressed her intention to return the instant vehicle. ④ If Nonparty 3’s unauthorized operation did not occur, it cannot be ruled out that Nonparty 2 consented later.

C. Nevertheless, solely based on its reasoning, the lower court determined that, insofar as Nonparty 2 was unable to recognize the status of the operator of the instant motor vehicle as at the time of the instant accident, it could not be recognized that Nonparty 2 was an operator as well as Nonparty 1, who did not use and manage the instant motor vehicle by entrusting Nonparty 2’s use and management of the instant motor vehicle to Nonparty 2. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “the operator of a motor vehicle for his own sake” as stipulated in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)