logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.08 2017나78003
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Grounds for this part of this court’s findings are set forth in Section 2 of the judgment of the first instance.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the phrase “ January 1, 2005” is deemed to read “ January 1, 2015” and “ December 31, 2016” as “by December 31, 2016,” and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the cause of claim 1) The agreement between the freight trucking service provider holding the freight trucking service license and the borrower who actually owns the automobile shall be registered in the name of the freight trucking service operator and reverted to the freight trucking service operator, and, insidely, each borrower shall conduct the business of managing and managing the automobile in his own account and pay the freight to the freight trucking service operator, even if the land owner directly operated and managing the automobile in his own name, the legal effect of the agreement is attributed to the land owner since the land owner, who is in the position of acting as an agent for the operation and management of the vehicle in its own name, constitutes the act of the land owner's agent for the land owner, and thereby, the land owner or the driver's negligence of the land owner, who actually caused damage to another person, constitutes the land owner's own business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da10050, Apr. 25, 1995).

arrow