Cases falling under an act related to the execution of affairs under Article 756 of the Civil Act

The third Deputy Security Officer, who takes over the key to the vehicle by arbitrarily transferring the vehicle heat of the security guard assigned to the third Deputy Security Officer while keeping the vehicle in custody with storage fees without knowledge of the owner, to arbitrarily drive the said vehicle and then gets damaged by the third Deputy Security Officer, the third Deputy Security Officer or his employee's above act is generally considered related to it even if he did not perform his original duties, and thus, the third Deputy Security Officer is liable to compensate for damages caused to the owner of the said vehicle due to the above harmful act.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da1194 delivered on August 31, 1971 (Kakaddd. 9799; Supreme Court Decision 19Du261 delivered on October 21, 1966, Decision 65Da825 delivered on October 21, 196 (Supreme Court Decision 2297Da2298 delivered on November 21, 196, Decision 756(47); Decision 48Da555 delivered on October 25, 196

Plaintiff Company

Defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance (76 Gohap1168)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,740,700 with 5% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay 1,99,700 won to the plaintiff.

The judgment that all the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials.

The fact that the plaintiff is the owner of (vehicle No. 1) who is a car for the plaintiff's own use of the Lye Code, and the defendant is operating the same kind of motor vehicle in the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (Saeungdong omitted), and the non-party No. 1 is working as security guards of the above Sejong Metropolitan City. The court below and the non-party No. 2 did not dispute between the parties, and the non-party No. 1's testimony (except for the portion not trusted in the court below). If the result of the verification of criminal records of the court below and the whole purport of the parties' arguments are gathered, the non-party No. 2, who was working as the above driver of the plaintiff's above vehicle, was at the above Sejong Metropolitan City No. 1's request for the above vehicle No. 300,000 won for storage fees to the non-party No. 1, the non-party No. 2 and the non-party No. 3's witness No. 1, who kept the above vehicle no more than 26. 14, the above vehicle no.

Thus, since the above acts of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, etc., who are the defendant's employees, are generally considered to be related to the above acts, even if they are not their original duties, the defendant is the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's employer, who is obligated to compensate for the losses suffered by the plaintiff due

Meanwhile, according to the above facts, Nonparty 2, who is an employee of the Plaintiff, requested the storage of the above vehicle to the above detailed vehicle without a parking facility, and the key to the vehicle was assigned to it, and the Plaintiff also erred by failing to exercise his duty of supervision over the storage of the above vehicle. Thus, the occurrence of the above accident should be concurrent with the negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, but this does not amount to the extent that the Defendant is exempted from the liability for damages, and thus, the following amount of damages should be considered in determining the amount of damages.

Furthermore, if we look at the amount of damages, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, which can be recognized as the authenticity by the testimony of the non-party 5 by the non-party 5, and consider the testimony of the above witness, the plaintiff can recognize that the plaintiff paid 1,290,700 won at the repair cost of the age of the damaged vehicle, and there is no data to reverse this. If we consider the negligence of the plaintiff as seen earlier, the amount of damages that the defendant is to compensate for as repair cost of the above vehicle is equivalent to 750,000 won.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the above vehicle was not operated for 20 days due to the above damage of the above vehicle and the vehicle was leased and used instead of the above vehicle for 20 days, thereby suffering losses of 300,000 won per day for 20 days, respectively, by using the vehicle for business use. However, the part of testimony by the non-party 2 of the party witness at the trial, who seems consistent with this, did not believe that the part of testimony by the non-party 2 of the party witness at the trial,

In addition, even if the above vehicle was repaired, the plaintiff sought compensation of KRW 486,771 due to the reduced exchange value of the vehicle's replacement value rather than the complete recovery as before the above accident occurred. Thus, in this case, even if the plaintiff's assertion itself, it is obvious that the plaintiff is operating the part damaged by the above vehicle at present, the plaintiff's claim for compensation for damages for the reduced exchange value in addition to the repair cost as seen above is about special damages, and at least there is a special circumstance such as that the above vehicle is at least damaged to the essential structure of the body of the vehicle, such as presses, and there is a position that it should be sold to others and replaced by others, and the claim can be made only when the defendant knew or could have known of the above special circumstance, and the testimony of the non-party 1 and 2 and the witness of the court below by the non-party 5 cannot be acknowledged as having known or could have known the existence of the above special circumstance or the defendant, and there is no need to further support the plaintiff's claim for compensation for damages.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum of the Civil Procedure Act from February 11, 1977 to the date following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, which the plaintiff was admitted to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognized limit, and the remaining amount shall be dismissed as just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Kim Ho-young (Presiding Judge)