liability for damage caused by the operation of the vehicle by a company which is an external owner of the vehicle;

Even if an external owner is the defendant company to which he/she has been employed, the borrower has a substantial ownership even though he/she is the defendant company to which he/she has been employed. Therefore, it is not a company responsible for the appointment and supervision of driver's license because it is merely an internal relationship between the company and the borrower.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant corporation

Seoul District Court of First Instance (66A9254)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 408,179,708 won, the amount of 408,191 won, and the amount of 5% per annum from December 26, 1966 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The defendant shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, etc.

Among the grounds for the decision of the party members on this case, the reasons for the decision on the causes for damages in this case, the decision on the defendant's defense of offsetting the defendant's negligence in relation to the status relationship of the plaintiff, etc., and the reasons for the decision on consolation money and funeral expenses claims of the plaintiff 1 are the same as the reasoning for each part of the original judgment, and therefore, each of them shall be accepted in accordance with Article

In addition, the defendant's (vehicle No. 1 omitted) city bus, which is the accident vehicle, is a vehicle that the non-party 1 moved into the defendant company on March 1960 and the company has no ownership, and the non-party 1, who is the borrower, is in charge of the supervision over the appointment of drivers, and thus the defendant company is not liable for damages. Thus, the defendant company claims that the non-party 1 is not liable for damages since it is the defendant company that is the non-party 1, who is an external owner, even though it is a vehicle located in the same area as the defendant's main owner. Therefore, since the borrower's actual ownership is nothing more than the internal relationship between the company

Furthermore, we judge the amount of damages suffered by the victim non-party 2.

If the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 7, which are not disputed in the formation, are all the purport of the oral argument with the testimony of non-party 3 and 4 of the court below, the non-party 2 is the male who was 55 years of age at the time of the death on March 25, 1910, and his average life life life life is 14.38 years. Thus, he can survive until the age of 69, because he is the non-party 2 as a male who was 5 years of age, he can receive 300,000 won per year from the annual salary of 150,000 won after deducting 150,000 won per year from the above occupation. Thus, he can be recognized that the above occupation can be 65 years of age and 150,000 won per year from the above occupation, and it is reasonable for the defendant to pay 00,000 won per year for the next nine years of the accident.

Then, upon examining the non-party 2's claim for consolation money, Dong-in shall have a duty to pay money sufficient to the above-mentioned defendant, as it is easy that the plaintiff et al. left the plaintiff et al. and died due to an unforeseen accident. Thus, the defendant shall have a duty to pay the above-mentioned amount, taking into account the situation of the accident, the degree of the victim's family relation's fault, and all the circumstances shown in this argument, it shall be reasonable as 60,000 won.

Therefore, since the amount of damages of the same person is more than the total amount of KRW 1,151,730, and that of the plaintiff et al. were jointly inherited, according to the shares of each person, the plaintiff 1 is 403,110 won, the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 are 134,370 won, respectively, and the defendant is obligated to pay each of the above amounts to the plaintiff et al.

Therefore, each claim of the plaintiff et al. against the plaintiff et al. shall be justified only to the extent that the plaintiff et al. claims for delayed transplant with the rate of 5 percent per annum from December 26, 1965 to the date of full payment, and the remainder shall be dismissed. The original judgment which cited the smaller amount shall be unfair only to the portion exceeding it, but since the plaintiff et al. did not appeal, the plaintiff et al. shall maintain the original judgment, and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed without merit, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, etc., pursuant to Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)