Whether an owner or holder of a motor vehicle loses his/her control over the operation of the motor vehicle and his/her operational benefits in cases where he/she temporarily makes a substitute driver to another person;

In a case where an owner or a holder of a motor vehicle temporarily entrusts another person with the keys of the motor vehicle due to drinking or any other reason attributable to driving impairment at the main place, it is reasonable to view that the owner or the holder of the motor vehicle has objectively and externally been in the interest of controlling the operation of the motor vehicle and operating interests in the relation to the victim of the motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of the said substitute driver. The substitute driver is not the manager or other employee of the main place.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Da2516 decided Oct. 25, 198 (Gong1988, 1470) 92Da6365 decided May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1853) 92Da40167 decided Feb. 9, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 950)

Park Easure

Young-si District Co., Ltd.

Busan District Court Decision 93Na1015 delivered on December 10, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. In a case where an owner or a holder of a motor vehicle temporarily left the keys of the motor vehicle to another person due to drinking at the main place of the motor vehicle or any other cause attributable to driving trouble, etc., it is reasonable to view that the owner or the holder of the motor vehicle has the operation control and operation profit of the motor vehicle objectively and externally in relation to the victim of the motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of the above substitute driver, and the substitute driver is the manager or other employee of the main place of the motor vehicle. In this case, even if the owner or the holder of the motor vehicle demanded the substitute driver, the person who first takes the key of the motor vehicle from the driver's license cannot be deemed to have a substitute driver only with the driver's license holder. Rather, it is difficult to expect that the vehicle owner or the holder of the motor vehicle is able to drive the motor vehicle without a driver's license, and it cannot be seen that the owner or the owner of the motor vehicle is expected or acceptable to drive the motor vehicle by an unauthorized driver. The victim is also an owner of the motor vehicle and the owner of the motor vehicle.

2. The court below's assertion that the non-party 1's above driver's license cannot be viewed as being operated for the defendant because the non-party 1's above driver's license could not be viewed as being objectively and externally because the defendant's driver's license cannot be viewed as being lost because the non-party 1's above driver's license could not be viewed as being operated for the defendant because the non-party 1's driver's license could not be objectively and externally because the non-party 1, the manager of the above driver's license, was asked to transfer the cargo vehicle in this case which was parked in the parking lot as indicated in the judgment, and the non-party 1 found the employee who was parked in the above driver's license to be a hotel in his judgment, and the non-party 1 could not be viewed as the defendant's above driver's license.

In addition, the issue is that the above Kim Gung-gi did not obtain the defendant's permission on the Gu office holidays, and the accident of this case occurred, so that the defendant lost the specific driving control and operational profit and there is no responsibility as an operator under Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act in relation to the accident. However, this is within the court room, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. All arguments are without merit.

3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)