Whether the identity of the owner of a motor vehicle under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act can be recognized in the event that the same is provided for the convenience and interest of the passengers on board the motor vehicle.

Even if an operator of a vehicle provides his/her seat for the convenience and interest of the passengers on board without any consideration, and even if he/she receives it for his/her convenience and interest, he/she cannot recognize the identity of the owner of the vehicle as stipulated in Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act to the passenger only.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2580 Decided September 22, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2994 Decided December 22, 1987

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 87Na358 delivered on December 29, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the First Ground:

Even if an operator of a vehicle provides his/her boarding for the convenience and interest of the passengers on board without any consideration, and even if he/she receives such provision for his/her convenience and interest, he/she cannot recognize the identity of the owner of an automobile as stipulated in Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2994, Dec. 22, 1987; 86Meu2580, Sept. 22, 1987).

Therefore, the court below was just in rejecting the defendant's argument that the deceased was on board the vehicle in spite of the driver's refusal of the accident vehicle in this case, and the reason that the deceased was on board the vehicle without compensation is not sufficient to reduce the amount of damages, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as pointed out.

The assertion is nothing more than an error in the judgment of the court below on the premise of a different fact. The assertion is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the records (818, et al.), it is clear that the plaintiff and the defendant made a statement that the monthly income of the deceased was no dispute over the facts that caused a gold 950,000, at the pleadings on the fourth date for pleading, which is the date of closing the argument of the court below. Therefore, calculating the lost profit based on this, the court below is just in light of the principle of pleading and the principle of disposition by the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1828, Sept. 27, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 80Da945, Aug. 8, 1983). There is no violation of the rules of evidence

The assertion is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)