A person who does not operate an automobile for himself/herself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

Even if the owner of a motor vehicle involved in the accident of the defendant, the non-party A, who has a seal to keep the motor vehicle in his/her vehicle in his/her possession, finds the motor vehicle in his/her color, and finds the motor vehicle in his/her color, and provides the two keys and motor vehicles to him/her, and the non-party A leases the motor vehicle to the non-party B without contact with the defendant, and the non-party B provides the above vehicle for the election campaign of the non-party C, and the non-party C caused the accident during his/her operation, if the non-party C transferred the vehicle to the non-party A upon his/her request for the sale and purchase, and the non-party C cannot take any means of control, such as direction and supervision, etc., concerning the operation of the motor vehicle until the accident takes place, and if the non-party B did not gain any profit from the operation of the above motor vehicle, the vehicle operation cannot be deemed to have been operated for the defendant Eul objectively.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da97 delivered on March 27, 1973

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court (71 Gohap1020)

Supreme Court Decision 73Da97 delivered on March 27, 200

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,065,615 won with an interest of 5% per annum from August 6, 1971 to the full payment, and a declaration of provisional execution.

On May 23, 1971, the plaintiff's attorney is claiming that the non-party 1 was injured by the non-party 6 driver's vehicle's failure to take care of the non-party 1's vehicle for about 3 months prior to the above 10:05 vehicle's designation, and the non-party 2's testimony and argument that the non-party 6 driver's vehicle's above 6th of the above 6th of the above 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 5th of the 6th of the 1971. The non-party 1's testimony and argument that the non-party 2's above 6th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 6th of the 6th of the 197th of the 196th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 197th of the 10th of the 1st of the 2.

Therefore, in this case, since the defendant does not constitute a person operating an automobile for himself as stipulated in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the plaintiff's claim for objection based on this premise is no longer required to be judged, and therefore, it shall be dismissed. Accordingly, as the judgment of original court is justified, the judgment in this case is just, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Choi Hon-ro (Presiding Judge) and Cho Jong-hee