The case holding that the driver employed at the business place operated by the owner of a vehicle without the consent of the owner of the vehicle used the vehicle for personal use without the consent of the owner, and the victims also did not lose the operation control and the operation benefits of the vehicle in consideration of the vehicle management status, operation circumstances, circumstances of the moving, etc. in relation to the vehicle and the accident caused by the vehicle while driving the vehicle while knowing such circumstances.

The judgment of the court below that the vehicle owner does not lose the operation control and operation profit for the vehicle, considering the management status of the vehicle and the circumstances where the victims who are the relatives of the above driver's friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend frith friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Attorney Kang Sung-sung, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Jeon Changmo (Attorney Jeon Chang-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na32669 delivered on October 31, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the defendant lost the operation control of the above vehicle of this case and did not constitute a person operating the above vehicle for himself as stipulated in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the first instance court determined that the above vehicle was not liable for compensation. The defendant, the owner of the above vehicle, used the vehicle for the purpose of the business of the office in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, which he operated, was employed as the driver of the above vehicle and left the vehicle to Nonparty 1. The defendant, who was employed as the driver of the above vehicle, was allowed to use the above vehicle entirely at the time of the above accident, and the defendant could not be seen as using the above vehicle without the driver's consent to the above vehicle without the driver's consent to the above vehicle of this case. The non-party 1, who was in the first instance court's possession of the above vehicle without the driver's consent to use the vehicle without the driver's consent to the above vehicle of this case from 10 days to 20 days after the accident.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In light of the records, the court below is just in finding that the victim was responsible for the fault of 30 percent in the occurrence of the accident of this case, and there is no incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of the legal principle as to offsetting negligence. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)