Unauthorized Operation

Where a maintenance contractor causes an accident while operating without permission together with a victim, the borrower and the maintenance factory shall not be liable to compensate for the loss if the victim knew of the unauthorized operation at the time of the accident.

Article 756 of the Civil Code, Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Defendant 1 Company and one other

(1) The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

(2) The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs jointly and severally ordered the plaintiff 1 to pay the amount of KRW 74,488,760, and KRW 72,488,760 to the plaintiff 2, and KRW 2,000,000 to the plaintiff 3, respectively, and KRW 1,000,000 to the plaintiff 4, 5,6, and 7, respectively, and the amount of KRW 1,00,000 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from June 5, 1983 to the date of the rendering of this judgment, and the amount of KRW 25% per annum from the next day to the day of the full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a provisional execution is declared.

1. In full view of the entries in Gap's Nos. 1 and 5 (each certified copy of family register), Gap's Nos. 2 and 3 (vehicle Number omitted), and Gap's Nos. 4 (Motor Vehicle Register), the results of verification of party members' criminal records and the whole purport of pleadings, at the point of June 5, 1983, the non-party 1, who is certified as the maintenance of the North Business Office of the defendant 1 Stock Company (hereinafter the defendant Company) (the defendant Company), operated the car free-of-child car owned by the defendant 2 (vehicle number omitted) and operated the Masan-dong car located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with the second line from the Mapo-dong at the Mapo-si, the non-party 2's (vehicle number omitted) head's (hereinafter the plaintiff's vehicle number omitted), and the non-party 3's mother was set up at the above 1st day and the remaining 1st day after the plaintiff's 1st day after his death, who was set up in the above 3rd and the 1st day.

2. The plaintiffs' attorney is the 0th 5th son of the accident company's 0th 0th 6th 6th 0th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 0th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 0th 6th 0th 6th 6th 0th 6th 0th 6th 0th 6th 6th 0th 6th 6th 0th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 0th 6th 6th 0th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 10th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 60th 6th 6th 6th 60th 6th 6th 10th 6th 20th 1st 1st 6th 1st 6th 66th 2.

Therefore, Defendant 2, in full view of the record of Nonparty 1 (the part that is not believed in the front and rear), Nonparty 4’s testimony (excluding the part that is not trusted in the front and rear), the result of the party members’ criminal records verification of the accident, and the whole purport of the pleading, which is the ownership of the vehicle, entered the vehicle into the North Korean office of the Defendant company located in Dobong-gu Seoul (detailed number omitted) on June 2, 1983 for the purpose of maintaining the vehicle and manufacturing and selling the parts of the vehicle: Nonparty 1, the above North Korean office maintenance official of the above North Korean office, who was aware of the fact that Nonparty 1 was on June 4, 1983 at the time of the above accident, was 0,000,000 0,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000).

Therefore, in light of the situation of the above deceased's being accompanied by his dong, the purpose of the operation of the accident vehicle, the time of the operation, etc., the operation of the vehicle for the defendants cannot be deemed to be operated for the defendants, and it cannot be said that the non-party 1, who is an employee of the defendant company, caused the accident in the course of performing his duties. Therefore, the defendants cannot be deemed to be "the person who operates the vehicle for his own sake" under Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act, and they cannot be held liable for damages to the defendants under the same Act, and the defendant company shall not be held liable for

3. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant of this case is without merit to examine the judgment on the amount of damages, and all of them are dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)