In the case of causing an automobile accident while driving a motor vehicle by leasing it with a driver, whether the person who leased the motor vehicle along with the driver is liable for the user;

If the Defendant leased the vehicle to the owner of the vehicle and let the driver continue to drive the vehicle, the Defendant is in a position to actually appoint the driver and supervise his/her duties. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the damages inflicted on the Plaintiffs due to the negligence during driving.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (71 Gohap180)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay 1,00,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and 300,000 won to the remaining plaintiffs respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

In full view of the testimony of Non-Party 1 and all purport of the parties' arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2,6,7,8,9,10, and 11 without dispute in its establishment, the non-party 2 is the driver (vehicle number omitted) of the defendant's 8th National Assembly election conducted on May 27, 1971, and as the driver's (vehicle number omitted) of the defendant's 1:00 on May 19, 1971, the above vehicle was installed on the street before the village of Dongri-ri for the defendant's election oil which was located in the Sungnam-gun-gun, Jinannam-gun, Jinnam-gun, the driver's license was not granted to the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 (the non-party 3) did not have any driver's license and did not have any other driver's license nor did it be acknowledged as the remaining wheeler's 4th on the left side of the plaintiff's 1's front road.

However, the defendant's legal representative asserted that he is liable for damages to the plaintiffs due to negligence in the course of performing his duties as the employer of the non-party 2, the defendant's legal representative argued that the non-party 5 (the vice-chairperson of the five North Korean district party (the name of the party is omitted) temporarily replaced the above vehicle in order to assist the defendant's election campaign, and thus the defendant cannot be held liable for damages to the non-party 9,13,14,15,16 (No. 2) without dispute over the establishment, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 5-3 where the authenticity of its establishment is recognized by the testimony of the non-party 6, the non-party 1, the non-party 6, the non-party 8, and the non-party 9's testimony (the non-party 8 and the non-party 9's testimony that did not believe after the non-party 1's testimony). In light of the above facts, the defendant agreed to the non-party 2's testimony and the non-party 10-party 2's testimony.

Therefore, as seen above, as to the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money, it is recognized that the deceased non-party 4's wife was caused by the death of the deceased non-party 4 and that the plaintiffs who are their children received the severe mental distress in our rule. Thus, the defendant is obligated to do so. As to the amount, considering all circumstances such as the above deceased and the plaintiffs' age, occupation, social status of the plaintiffs and the defendant's property in the whole purport of Non-party 1's testimony and pleading, it is reasonable to determine that the defendant is 200,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and 70,000 won to the rest of the plaintiffs, respectively.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 200,000 won to the plaintiff 1 each, and 70,000 won to the rest of the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above recognition scope and the remainder is actual, and it is dismissed. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance which is so effective is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the appeal cost is assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Yong-gu (Presiding Judge)