[1] In the so-called "land entry system", where a land owner directly operates and manages a motor vehicle and enters into a cargo transport contract under his/her name, the subject to whom the external legal effect belongs (=a land entry company)

[2] In a case where a driver of a motor vehicle by negligence causes damage to another person, whether the company is liable for the use of the motor vehicle (affirmative)

[1] According to a contract between a trucking business operator holding a trucking transport business license and a trucking business operator, an automobile is registered in the name of the trucking business operator and reverted to the trucking business operator externally, and each borrower conducts business on his/her own account and on his/her own account, and a trucking transport business operator pays the rent to the trucking business operator, even if a trucking transport business operator entered into a trucking transport contract under his/her name while directly operating and managing the vehicle loaded by the trucking owner, the act of the trucking owner acting for the trucking company as an agent for its operation and management under the delegation by the company, which is the owner of the vehicle, and its legal effect belongs to the subsidiary company.

[2] In a case where the borrower of a local government-invested vehicle or a driver's negligence causes damage to another person, the local government-invested company shall not only indicate that the local government-invested vehicle belongs to its own business but also shall be in the position of the employer who directs and supervises the local government-invested vehicle objectively. Thus, the local government-invested company shall be liable for such tort.

[1] Articles 114 and 680 of the Civil Code, Article 13 of the Trucking Transport Business Act / [2] Article 756 of the Civil Code, Article 13 of the Trucking Transport Business Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3215 delivered on December 27, 198 (Gong1989, 230), Supreme Court Decision 91Da15409 delivered on August 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2408), Supreme Court Decision 95Da34255 delivered on November 10, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3913)

Syun Korea Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daeyang Transportation Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Law, Attorneys Jin-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na53331 delivered on March 22, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of a supplement to the appeal received after the expiration of the period) are examined.

According to a contract entered into between a trucking business operator holding a trucking transport business license and a trucking business operator who actually owns a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle shall be registered in the name of the trucking business operator and shall be reverted to the trucking business operator, and the borrower shall conduct the business on his/her own account and pay the rent to the trucking business operator, even if the owner of the motor vehicle directly operated and managed the motor vehicle in his/her name, the legal effect of the act of the owner of the motor vehicle acting for and on behalf of the owner of the motor vehicle shall belong to the designated company. In addition, in cases where the owner of the motor vehicle or the driver of the motor vehicle caused damage to another person due to the negligence of the owner of the motor vehicle or the owner of the motor vehicle employed by the owner, the designated owner shall be liable for the illegal act as to the owner of the motor vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da8588, Oct. 28, 2005).

The court below concluded a cargo transport contract with the non-party who is registered as the non-party to the above Samsung Electronic Corporation, etc. to transport the goods of this case from Won to Busan. The defendant company entered into an automobile entrustment contract with the non-party who actually owns the truck of this case before entering into the above cargo transport contract, and would manage and operate the truck of this case by receiving monthly entrusted management expenses in the future of the defendant company. The non-party, as the actual owner of the vehicle of this case, did not have an obligation to directly drive the automobile of this case and manage the goods of this case on its own account, based on the non-party's trade name, and the non-party did not have an obligation to directly execute the transportation contract of this case to the non-party to the non-party to the contract of this case. Since it was concluded with the non-party to the contract of this case, the plaintiff company was not a designated entity with the non-party to whom the non-party had an obligation to directly execute the transportation contract of this case to the non-party to the contract of this case to the non-party's goods transport contract of this case.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below seems to be justifiable and, if so, the fact-finding by the court below is so true, the court below held that the defendant, a branch company, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages of this case caused by the negligence of the non-party, who is the non-party, who is the non-party, and rejected the defendant's assertion for the reasons stated in its holding, and it is acceptable in light of the above legal principles, and there is no violation of the rules

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)