beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts without dispute;
A. The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a personal automobile insurance with respect to the B dump truck in Nonparty A’s name (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with the insurance period from March 22, 2011 to March 22, 2012.
B. Around September 2, 2011, Nonparty C driven the Defendant’s vehicle and operated near the oil station located in Chungcheongnam-si, Kim Yong-si (hereinafter “instant accident”) caused a traffic accident that shocks the Plaintiff’s utility poles on the wind with a view to avoiding the vehicle, which he operated in the vicinity of the oil station located in Chungcheongnam-si, Kim Jong-si (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff spent KRW 47,464,810 for the restoration of the telegraph and distribution line.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, the insurer of the accident caused by the Defendant’s direct claim, sought compensation for the Plaintiff’s damage. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that, inasmuch as the instant accident occurred while A had already sold the Defendant’s vehicle to another place and lost its operation control over the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the insurance money.
Therefore, "A person who operates an automobile for his own sake" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act means a person who can be deemed to be in the position of a responsible subject to the control of the operation of the automobile in question and the benefit of the operation of the automobile in question. In this case, the control of the operation can be deemed to be in the position of indirect control or the possibility of control instead of the actual control.
In addition, in cases where a motor vehicle is entrusted for sale and purchase, the question of whether the truster, etc. is responsible for interfering with the operation of the motor vehicle, or controlling and managing the motor vehicle by social norms should be determined by examining the substantial relationship between the parties concerned.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da47181 delivered on November 26, 2002, etc.). However, a witness is a witness.