Where a lessor decides to assume all civil and criminal responsibilities for all accidents during the work while concluding a equipment lease contract, whether the lessee's liability as a joint tortfeasor is excluded.

In concluding a equipment lease contract, even if the lessor agreed to assume all civil and criminal responsibilities for all accidents caused by negligence or failure to drive in the work, such circumstance alone does not exclude the lessee's liability for damages as joint tortfeasor.

Articles 750 and 760 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] 1, 198 (Law No. 757(15)1274, No. 708, 1013)

Geum River, Inc.

Gu type mother

Incheon District Court of First Instance (88 Ghana36928)

1. The part of the original judgment against the defendant ordering payment of 90 million won to the defendant at an annual rate of 5 percent from March 8, 1988 to full payment, shall be revoked, and the corresponding part of the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts of the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,970,800 won with an interest of 5 percent per annum from March 8, 1988 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

(1) On the other hand, the 6th 1st 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 8th 8th 8th 6th 6th 6th 6th 8th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1987.

The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, while the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to assume all civil and criminal responsibilities for all accidents caused by negligence or failure to drive while working, so even if the plaintiff is liable as a joint illegal offender, it is argued that the plaintiff is fully responsible to the defendant according to the above agreement. Thus, according to the above Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff's agreement was made between the plaintiff and the defendant, although it is recognized that the purport of the agreement was not to exclude the plaintiff's liability as a joint illegal offender, it is reasonable in light of the statement or logic that the plaintiff's purport of the agreement is not to exclude the plaintiff's liability as a joint illegal offender. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

Therefore, the above accident is a concurrent act between the plaintiff's above red paths and the above-mentioned yellow-line's employees, and the plaintiff and the defendant are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the above damage caused by the above Kim Jong-chul's accident. In light of the above circumstances of the accident, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's side is 40/100 and the defendant's side is 60/100. Meanwhile, in consideration of the above negligence of the above Kim Young-chul's above, the amount of damages that the above Kim Jong-chul's course can claim against the plaintiff and the defendant should be set at KRW 1,50,000,000, which corresponds to the above ratio of negligence among the above medical expenses paid by the plaintiff to the above Kim Young-chul's employees, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above amount of KRW 900,000 (1,50,000,000 won) equivalent to the above ratio of negligence among the above medical expenses paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay at the rate of five percent per annum from March 8, 1988, the day following the day on which the plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the amount of 900,000 won and the damages for delay from March 8, 1988 to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remainder shall be dismissed without merit. Since the original judgment is unfair with partial conclusion, it is accepted in part of the defendant's appeal, and the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the above recognition scope is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding thereto is dismissed. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act

Judges Seosung (Presiding Judge)