[1] The case holding that in case where a driver of a vehicle dies of an accident while he was on duty while driving the vehicle on his behalf even before the driver's permission is granted to the driver, who is a skilled driver who drives the vehicle on his behalf, and was on duty, the deceased driver constitutes another person as provided in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[2] The meaning of "business or workplace which employs not less than five workers" under Article 10 of the former Labor Standards Act and the criteria for its determination

[1] The case holding that in case where a driver of a vehicle dies of an accident while driving the vehicle on his/her behalf, who is a skilled driver who drives the vehicle on his/her behalf, even before the driver's permission is granted, the deceased driver shall be deemed to fall under another person under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[2] Article 10 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of Mar. 13, 1997) and the proviso of Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act "business or workplace which employs not less than five workers at a time" means a case where the number of workers is less than five, even if there are cases where the number of workers is less than five, it constitutes more than five, and further, it includes not only the continuous workers in the workplace but also the daily workers employed for that time.

[1] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act / [2] Article 10 (1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997) (see current Article 10 (1) of the Labor Standards Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Da128 delivered on February 22, 1983 (Gong1983, 586) (Gong1993Sang, 1455 delivered on April 24, 1989) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 87Do153 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1987, 842) (Gong1987, 1390) Supreme Court Decision 93Da4238 delivered on March 14, 195 (Gong195, 1596)

Heading and one other (Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and one other (Defendant's Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Na4595 delivered on June 5, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below and the records, the non-party 1, who was the driver of the non-driving Livestock operated by the defendant Cho Jin-jin, was ordered by the above defendant to transport the truck of this case on the day of the accident, and was asked by him to the non-party 2, who was the driver of the new Heung-si and was just driving on his own behalf, and was living in the above office of the non-party 2. The non-party 2 was driving the truck of this case on his own behalf. The non-party 2 caused the death of the above deceased who was a driver of the non-school livestock operated by the defendant Cho Jin-jin, and was driving the truck of this case on behalf of the above deceased. The non-party 2 did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the non-party 1, who was claiming that the non-party 2 was driving of the motor vehicle of this case on the day of the accident, on the day of the non-party 2's accounting of the above non-party 1, as the above defendant's appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 10 of the Labor Standards Act and the proviso of Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the term "business or workplace which employs not less than five workers at a regular time" shall apply to cases where the number of workers becomes less than five, even if there are cases where the number of workers is less than five, and further, it shall include not only the workers who continue to work in the workplace but also the daily workers employed for the necessity at that time. However, in light of the records, the court below's determination that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the number of workers engaged in the above non-livestock industry operated by the defendant Cho Jae-jin is not less than five at all times for the reasons as stated in its reasoning, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, violation of the duty to explain, violation of the duty to explain, etc., as alleged in the

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)