A. Criteria for determining whether the operation control and operation profit of an owner of an automobile is lost in the event of an accident caused by a third party's unauthorized driving

B. In a case where a free passenger who is a victim was involved in or was aware of an illegal driving, whether it is determined that the operation control and operation profit of an owner of an automobile was lost

(c) In case of an accident caused by an employee's unauthorized driving, the case holding that the owner of an automobile lost the operational control and operational profit in relation to the victim who is a gratuitous passenger;

A. “A person who operates an automobile for his own sake” under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act refers to a person who is in the position of an entity responsible for controlling the operation of an automobile and enjoying the benefit therefrom. Thus, even if a third party was involved in an accident while driving the automobile without permission, the owner of the automobile who is normally recognized as in such position shall be held liable for the accident as an operator under the above Article, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the owner’s control of operation and the profit from operation was completely lost. Whether the operation control and the loss of profit has been made shall be determined by comprehensively assessing all objective and external circumstances, such as the situation in which the operation is possible regardless of the owner’s intent, the personal relationship between the owner and the driver, the possibility of the driver’s consent after the operation, the possibility of the victim’s subjective perception of the operation without permission, and in particular, the important elements to determine whether the driver’s control or the profit from operation was lost or not.

B. Even if a free passenger, who is the victim, took part in or was aware of the driver’s unauthorized operation at the time of the accident, there are circumstances that may harm the driver’s unauthorized operation in light of the circumstances and purpose of the operation, or the situation where the unauthorized operation is practically closely related to the driver’s ordinary duties and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the owner solely lost the driver’s control or the profit of operation.

C. The case holding that, in case where an employee of an owner of an automobile uses the automobile without the company's consent and the victim took the automobile free of charge with the knowledge of such circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the operation of the automobile was in a state of completely deviating from the company's control and the scope of its operational profit, in light of the fact that the accident occurred when the safety driving was not possible due to drinking, and that the employee was not an employee of the company, but a third party, at the time of the accident, to a destination considerably away from the company's location, and caused the accident, even though considering the state of management and use of the automobile's ordinary lawsuit, it is reasonable at least at the time of the accident, in relation to the victim, who is a free passenger, to view that the operation of the automobile was in a state of being in a state of completely deviating from the company's operational profit and its operation profit.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da6365 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1292), 92Da41733 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2243), Supreme Court Decision 88Da2134 delivered on March 28, 1989 (Gong1989, 670)

Kim Jong-bok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Daegu High Court Decision 93Na3340 delivered on December 31, 1993

The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 was operating the above non-party 2's vehicle at the time of the above non-party 1's accident and the non-party 2's accident management of the above non-party 1's vehicle at the time of the above non-party 2's operation of the above non-party 1's junife and the non-party 2's accident management of the above non-party 1's vehicle at the time of the above non-party 1's operation of the above non-party 1's junife and the non-party 2's accident management of the non-party 1's junife and the non-party 2's non-party 1's accident management of the above non-party 1's junife and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's accident management of the above vehicle.

2. “A person who operates an automobile for himself” under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act refers to a person who is in a position to take charge of controlling the operation of an automobile and enjoying the benefit therefrom. Thus, even if a third party was involved in an accident while driving the automobile without permission, the owner of the automobile shall be held liable for the accident as prescribed in the above Article, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the control of the operation and the profit from operation were completely lost in its entirety. Whether the operation control and the loss of profit from operation are possible regardless of the owner’s intention, the personal relationship between the owner and the driver, the possibility of the driver’s consent after driving the automobile, the existence of the victim’s subjective perception of the operation without permission, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da4173, Jul. 13, 1993; 2008Da198481, Mar. 16, 198, 209).

In this case, according to the statement and image of the non-party 12, 13, and 4 of the above evidence No. 8-2, Eul's 3-2, and Eul's 1 and 2, the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were aware of the fact that the non-party 2 was the non-party 2's use of the above evidence No. 1 and the non-party 2's use of the above evidence No. 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's.

Of course, even if a free passenger took part in a driver's unauthorized operation or was aware of it at the time of the accident, it cannot be determined that the owner solely took part in a driver's illegal operation without permission or on the ground that there are circumstances likely to harm the driver's illegal operation as being socially acceptable in light of the circumstances of operation or purpose of operation, or that the unauthorized operation is closely closely related to the driver's ordinary duties, and thus, it cannot be entirely ruled that the owner's unauthorized operation without permission took part in the operation without permission or was aware of it. However, as in this case, it is difficult for the court below to understand that the illegal operation without permission of the deceased non-party 2 took part in the operation without permission without permission for a long time without relation to the defendant company's work, and that it is difficult for the deceased non-party 2 to completely take into account the situation where the driver's safe operation without permission was impossible due to drinking, and that it is difficult for the defendant company to fully take into account the situation of operation without permission, such as the accident of this case, and the accident of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense of exemption from liability is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to automobile operators under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and it is obvious that this has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)