A. Whether a mid-term borrower has the right to claim damages against the infringement of ownership during the mid-term period (negative)

(b) Whether a land owner, a mid-term lessee, has the right to claim damages where a mid-term period has been destroyed due to the negligence on the part of a mid-term lessee (affirmative)

C. Whether a tenant is deemed to have been granted the possession of a mid-term period between the lessor and the lessee in a case where the driver of the mid-term lessor is merely driving the mid-term period, and is subject to the lessee's direction and supervision concerning all matters regarding the use of the mid-term period (affirmative)

A. If Party A purchased a middle term under an entrustment contract with Company B, which is a mid-term business operator, registered as the owner in the future of Company B, even if Party A exercised the real ownership of the middle term, the external owner of the middle term is not Party B, and Party A cannot have the right to claim damages against infringement of the mid-term term, since it is limited to only Company B, and Party A is not Party A.

B. If the mid-term period has been destroyed due to the negligence on the part of the mid-term lessee, the lessee bears the liability for damages due to the failure to return the leased object in its original condition, and the land owner, the mid-term lessee, even though not the owner of the mid-term period, has the right to claim damages as a party to the mid-term lease

C. If the driver of the mid-term lessor at the time of work using the mid-term maturity is merely driving the mid-term maturity and is under the lessee's direction and supervision concerning all matters regarding the use of the mid-term maturity, it is reasonable to view that the lessee was transferred to him in possession of the mid-term maturity between the lessor and the lessee at least.

(b)Article 186 [title trust] and Article 14(b) of the Mid-Term Management Act; Article 618(c) of the Civil Code;

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu18641 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1461). Supreme Court Decision 72Da2572 delivered on May 22, 1973 (No. 21B citizen14) (Gong14 delivered on October 8, 1985) 85Da351 delivered on October 8, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na64847 delivered on April 17, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

If the plaintiff purchased the middle term of this case and then registered the owner in the name of the non-party company under an entrustment contract between the non-party company and the non-party company which is the mid-term business operator, even if the plaintiff exercised the real ownership of the middle term, the external owner of the middle term is not the non-party company and the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff cannot have the right to claim damages against the infringement of ownership of the middle term (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu18641, Sept. 12, 1989).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no illegality in the judgment of the court that points out the theory of the lawsuit.

With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3:

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff made a mid-term lease contract with the defendant, namely, that the non-party (the plaintiff's respondent) was damaged by the defendant's negligence during work in accordance with the defendant's direction, and thus, the defendant is liable for damages under the lease agreement. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is liable for damages under the lease agreement, after considering the purport of the plaintiff's assertion to the effect that the plaintiff is liable for damages caused by the lessee's failure to return leased property, and the contract of this case is not leased by the method of the plaintiff's transfer of the mid-term period itself to the defendant, but is a contract with the plaintiff's employees to allow the former former driver to work in accordance with the defendant's direction at the construction site designated by the defendant for the agreed period, and the possession of the mid-term period is to provide the former driver's right to use the mid-term period with the plaintiff's labor. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above part of the plaintiff'

The court below recognized that the plaintiff's claim for damages under the contract of this case was made with the purport of claiming the tenant's non-performance of obligation to return the leased object and determined as above. In examining the plaintiff's claim based on the record, it is clear that the plaintiff leased the middle term under the mid-term lease contract of this case with the defendant, and as the defendant was damaged due to negligence on the part of the defendant who is the tenant, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the damage. If the plaintiff's claim is acknowledged as such, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the failure to return the leased object in its original condition. Meanwhile, even if the plaintiff is not the owner of the mid-term lease, it shall be held as the party to the contract.

The court below found that the mid-term rental contract of this case was provided along with the right to use the mid-term driver's labor, unlike the ordinary lease contract of this case, and the possession of the mid-term driver's labor is deemed to continue to be held by the lessor through his employee. However, even according to the theory of the court below, the plaintiff's employee in this case at the construction site designated by the defendant, and the plaintiff's employee in this case is allowed to work in accordance with the defendant's order. If the plaintiff's driver in this case is under the direction and supervision of the defendant for all matters related to the use of the mid-term, it is reasonable to view that the lease contract of this case was transferred to the tenant in use of the mid-term, at least between the landlord and the

The court below did not examine whether or not the above mid-term rental contract of the plaintiff's assertion was duly established on the basis of the reasons stated in its reasoning (the record reveals that the defendant in this case asserts that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff). The rejection of the above argument by the plaintiff is ultimately an illegal act which either misapprehending the legal principles of liability for damages arising from the mid-term rental contract and failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

The appeal is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jae-ju, Choi Jae-ho, Kim Yong-han