Whether there is any negligence in the management of a truck driver parked at night;

In parking a truck, the driver has a duty of care to prevent unauthorized operation by others by parking in his/her house or parking on the parking lot with the manager. Therefore, even if he/she extracted the height of the truck and corrected the door of the driver's seat and returned to the house, since the time when the vehicle was set up is at night and the place is empty, it cannot be said that the unauthorized operation by the third party is prevented, as long as the place is empty, it cannot be said that the illegal operation by the third party is prevented.

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Exclusive Transport Partnership

Defendant

Busan District Court (82 Gohap3499)

Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1389 Decided December 27, 1983

1. The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,635,140 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from July 30, 1982 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be ten minutes, which shall be borne by the defendant, and the remaining one by the plaintiff.

3. The portion paid with the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,935,140 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from the next day of the service of the complaint of this case to the next day of the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The court below's testimony and inspection of the above-mentioned truck by Nonparty 1 was carried out on the front side of the above-mentioned stop line, and the driver of the above-mentioned truck by using the driver's 3 driver's rhiff truck's riffly constructed on the front side of the above-mentioned stop line without permission by using the driver's riff's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riffy line's riff's riffy line's riff's r.

The defendant was trying to turn to the left at the entrance of the camping box at the time of the accident in this case. In this case, the non-party 2, who is the driver of the above Posi, tried to turn to the left, after examining whether there is a vehicle passing through the straight-line vehicle, if there is a straight-line vehicle, will first pass the straight-line vehicle and then pass the left at the left. The accident in this case occurred. Thus, the defendant's above liability should be exempted. Even if there is gross negligence on the part of the non-party 2, the defendant's above liability should be offset within the scope of the liability for damages. However, the non-party 2 did not have any other evidence than the maintenance order of the record verification of the above criminal record, the non-party 2 did not have any other evidence, and according to the evidence above, the non-party 2 could not be viewed as the non-party 2's own fault or the counter-party 2's counter-party 2's counter-party 2's counter-compliance with the above duty of care.

2. Scope of damages.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence No. 2 (Written estimate), the new testimony of the court below, and the testimony of the plaintiff as a whole, the plaintiff bears the obligation of repairing 2,835,140 won in order to repair the damaged part of the above taxi, and the plaintiff can be found to have lost the profits of 80,000 won in total for 16 days from May 19, 1982 to June 3, 1982 due to the above taxi's failure to operate the above taxi for 16 days, and there is no counter-proof, so the plaintiff suffered damages of 3,635,140 won in total.

In addition, the plaintiff argued that the defendant should compensate for damages incurred by the failure to operate the above taxi during the above period from May 13, 1982 to June 18 of the same month. However, the above ground of the plaintiff's assertion does not constitute an inevitable reason to make the repair of the accident of this case impossible, nor does it result in the defendant's fault. Thus, the damages suffered by delayed repair due to the above reason cannot be deemed as damages with proximate causal relation with the accident of this case. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

The defendant paid KRW 1,042,910 to repair the truck owned by the defendant due to the accident of this case, and caused damages of KRW 1,252,910 by losing profits of KRW 30,000 per day, which is the sum of KRW 30,000 per day due to the failure to operate the truck for 7 days in the repair time, and thereby causing damages of KRW 1,252,910 per day. Of these, the defendant asserted that the part corresponding to the ratio of the plaintiff's fault is offset against the amount equal to the amount of the plaintiff's damage claim. However, in this case where the plaintiff's negligence is not recognized as above, the above argument on the premise that the plaintiff's negligence was not determined further.

3. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages of the above recognition amounting to 3,635,140 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 30, 1982 to the full payment date, which is obvious in the record that the service profit of the plaintiff's claim for damages of the above recognition is the service profit date of the copy of the above determination. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable within the above recognition scope, and the others' claim shall be accepted within the above recognition scope and shall be dismissed as without merit. Since the judgment of the court below is improper with some conclusion, it is modified as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, and with respect to the total costs of the lawsuit, Article 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning

Judges Jeong Man-man (Presiding Judge)