Whether the driver of the vehicle owned by the Defendant A was liable for the occurrence of an accident caused by the unauthorized Operation, which caused the key to the said vehicle to the Defendant B, to the Defendant C, a gas station employee of the management of the Defendant B.

A. If the owner of the vehicle A left the said vehicle or the key thereof in a state where it is possible to drive the vehicle or key thereof without permission, and if it is confirmed that the vehicle and the key thereof were to be returned to the original location after without permission for a certain period not to run without permission, the vehicle and key thereof could not be deemed to have been lost due to the loss of the general driving control and operating profit as to the said vehicle from the external point of view, on the ground that the vehicle A was driving without permission.

B. Although Byung is an employee of Eul, if the driver of the above vehicle at the time of the accident is an employee of Eul, regardless of Eul's duties as a gas station in his management, and the victims were involved in the operation of the above vehicle while being involved in the accident while being aware of the circumstances, the operation of the above vehicle at the time of the accident cannot be deemed as operation for Eul or the performance of duties at the gas station. Thus, Eul cannot be deemed as an employee for the operation of the above vehicle.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and 15 others

Defendant 1 and one other

1. Defendant 1 shall pay to Plaintiff 1 7,564,704, 300,000, 200, 3,4,5,6, 7, 8, and 9 respectively to Plaintiffs 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9, 300,000, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 respectively to Plaintiffs 10, 300,000, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 200,000, and 25,000 per annum from February 9, 1984 to January 22, 1986, and from January 23, 1986 to 20,000.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against Defendant 1 and the claims against Defendant 2 are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1 is divided into two parts, and one is the plaintiffs, and the remainder is the plaintiffs', and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 2 is the plaintiffs', respectively.

4. A provisional execution may be effected only for two-thirds of the prize money as referred to in paragraph (1).

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs 14,783,232 won and 1,00,000 won per annum to the Plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 respectively, 50,000 won per annum to the Plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9, and 18,597, 428 won to the Plaintiffs 10, and 11,000 won per annum to the Plaintiffs 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 respectively, and 50,000 won per annum from February 9, 1984 to the delivery date of the complaint, and 25,000 won per annum to the full payment date.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The above 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 of the plaintiff's above 1's certificate No. 1, 4, 12, 13 (Examination of Evidence No. 9), 10 of the same certificate No. 1, 16 of the same certificate No. 1, 17 of the same certificate No. 2, and 17 of the above testimony No. 2 of the plaintiff No. 1, the above 1, 3's testimony No. 1, 2, and 3's testimony that the above 4's above 5's 1, 10's 5's 5's 4's 7's 5's 5's 4's 5's 5's 5's 1's 5's 1's 5's 5's 5's 1's 5''''''''''''' 7''''''s 7''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2 1'2''''''''2'''''7''''''2''''''''''''''''4'''''''2'2'.

According to the above facts, it is confirmed that not only Defendant 1's ownership but also the above truck or its starting condition was left unable to run without permission by the above staff, and the above non-party 4 was expected to return the starting heat of the above truck to its original location after the non-party 4's operation without permission. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the non-party 1 lost his status as an operator because the non-party 4's non-party 1 was objectively and externally lost operational control and operational profit on this truck, and the non-party 2's non-party 4's driver's above operation of the above truck without permission was not required to take part in the above operation of the above truck, and it cannot be viewed that the non-party 4's employee's above operation without permission was the non-party 4's driver's consent as well as the above non-party 4's employee's above operation without permission. However, even if the non-party 4's above operation of the above truck, it cannot be viewed that the above non-party 1's employee's driver's above operation without permission.

However, according to the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the above plaintiffs 1 and 10, without a driver's license, take aboard the above truck driven by the above non-party 4 without a driver's license in excess of the seating capacity and enjoy the dramab, and they suffered this accident. However, the above negligence of the above plaintiffs does not reach the degree of exemption from the liability for damages of the defendant 1, and therefore, it should be considered in calculating the amount of damages as seen below.

2. Calculation of damages;

(a) passive damage;

In full view of the above evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-2 of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-2 of Gap evidence Nos. 3 without dispute over the establishment, Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 and 2 of Gap evidence Nos. 9-2 (the No. 1 and the contents of the No. 1) and the whole purport of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 1-2 of this case's physical appraisal report to the director of the school annexed to the members' school annexed to the members' household, the plaintiff No. 1 was 18-6 months of this accident at the time of this accident, and the plaintiff No. 10 were 16-5 months of this accident, and the average remaining life of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 10 were 5-6 years of age at the time of this accident, the plaintiff No. 10 was 58-6 years of age, and the plaintiff No. 1 was 10-6 days of age and 5-day labor experience, respectively, and the plaintiff No. 1 and 5-day labor experience of this case No.

Therefore, in the absence of this accident, plaintiff 1 and 10 were able to obtain monthly income of 167,250 won (6,690 x 25) for 432 months from the completion of 55 years of age. According to the rate of reduction of work ability caused by this accident, plaintiff 1 shall be 25,087 won (167,250 won x 15/100) per month (the same shall apply hereinafter), and plaintiff 10 shall be 58,537 won (167,250 x 35/100) monthly from the date of age of 432 to the date of completion of 55 years of age, and shall be 28,675 x 2768,675 x 1675,6757,570).

(b) Medical expenses;

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 7 (Claims for Medical Expenses), Gap evidence Nos. 8 (Claims for Medical Expenses), each of which is acknowledged to have been filed by non-party 6's testimony, and all of the above statements and the purport of the oral argument, plaintiff 1 shall be deemed to have been KRW 5,867,600 in total, since February 8, 1984 to August 4, 1984, and the plaintiff 10 and the plaintiff 10 for the same period, respectively, hospitalized in Pyeongtaek-si Hospital for the same period to KRW 3,171,60 in total, and KRW 2,809,00 in total, and KRW 1 shall be deemed to have been paid for medical treatment and physical treatment expenses due to the accident, and since there is no counter-proof evidence, the plaintiff 1's treatment expenses shall be KRW 5,867,600 in total.

(c) Set-off of negligence;

Therefore, the Plaintiff 1’s property damage is 11,774,507 won in total (5,906,907 won + 5,867,600 won), and the Plaintiff 10’s property damage is 15,597,428 won in total (12,78,428 +2,809,000 won). However, in consideration of the above Plaintiffs’ negligence processed in the occurrence of the above accident, Defendant 1, as property damage, should pay the Plaintiff 1 a gold amounting to 7,064,704 won (11,774,507 x60/100) (11,774,507 x60/100) and 10 a gold amounting to 9,358,456 won (15,597,428 won x60/100).

(d) Condolence money;

In this accident, as the plaintiffs 1 and 10 suffered mental distress by the plaintiffs 1 and 10 suffered the same injury as the above recognition, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the victims as well as the above plaintiffs' mother and sibling suffered mental distress, defendant 1 is obligated to do so with money. Thus, considering the following circumstances and result of the accident, if we consider the degree of negligence of the plaintiffs 1 and 10 and other circumstances shown in the argument of this case such as the plaintiff's family relation, age, property status, etc., the defendant 1 should pay 50,000 won as consolation money and 300,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 1 and 10 to the plaintiffs 2 and 11, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case against the defendant 1 are 7,064,704 won as property damage; 7,564,700 won as consolation money; 300,000 won as consolation money; 300,4,564,700 won; 200,000 won as consolation money; 9,358,456 won as proprietary damage; 50,000 won as consolation money; 9,358,456 won as consolation money; 200,000 won as damages; 9,000 won as compensation money; 30,000,000 won as compensation money; 12,13,14, 164, 16, 16, and 9,000 won as compensation money; and 9,000,000 won as 9,000 won as well as 9,000 won as 20,000 won per annum of the Civil Procedure Act as 9.

Judges Lee Jong-young (Presiding Judge)