Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer (beneficiary) who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to B-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of C-Motor vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

On September 30, 2014, around 04:10, in the course of witnessing and rapid stop of the defendant vehicle moving back to the driver's seat of the plaintiff vehicle, the plaintiff's vehicle, who was left to the left at the intersection of the high instructor distance of the Gocheon-gu Gocheon-gu Gocheon-gu, Gocheon-gu, Gocheon-gu, Gocheon-gu, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle caused the injury of the plaintiff vehicle D (hereinafter "the accident in this case").

The Plaintiff, as an insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 1,578,160 in total as agreed amount and medical expenses in accordance with the instant accident from October 8, 2014 to November 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff who is responsible for the accident of this case as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole oral argument, asserts that the defendant, the owner of the vehicle, is liable to compensate for damages caused by the accident of this case, since the accident of this case occurred due to the fault that defendant's vehicle

In this regard, the defendant asserts that he is not liable for damages since the substitute driver was driving the defendant vehicle not at the time of the accident of this case.

However, in relation to the victim of the vehicle accident caused by the negligence of the substitute driver, the owner or the holder of the vehicle has objective and external interests in controlling the operation of the vehicle and operating interests.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da5502 delivered on April 15, 1994). The instant accident occurred when the Defendant, as the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle, had the Defendant drive the vehicle E and took the vehicle on duty. As such, the Defendant controlled the actual operation of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, thereby allowing the Defendant to enjoy its operating benefits.