beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 259,011,447 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 31, 2015 to September 2, 2020.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (1) around 00:40 on October 31, 2015, Defendant C, an acting driver, driven a vehicle owned by Defendant D at the request of Defendant B, and driven the Plaintiff, who was crossinged the crosswalk in the form of yellow flickering on the right side from the left side of the running direction of the Defendant’s vehicle, at the front side of the general information center of government office building in front of Sejong City, which is located at the 11-lane in front of Sejong City, along the two-lane in front of the general information center of government office building in front of Sejong City, which is located at the 11-lane in front.
(2) The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as Dam dynasium, the right synasium, etc., including two accidents of this case, and was hospitalized from the time of the accident to May 31, 2016.
[Ground for Recognition] Defendant C: The fact that there is no dispute between Defendant B and Defendant B; Gap 1-9; all or part of each of the parties (including additional numbers); the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above recognition of liability, Defendant B is an operator of the Defendant vehicle, barring any special circumstance, and Defendant C is jointly liable for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident as the driver of the Defendant vehicle.
Defendant B asserts that he lost the operation control over the Defendant vehicle by concluding a substitute driving contract with Defendant C and entrusting the operation of the vehicle.
However, in a case where an owner or a holder of a motor vehicle temporarily entrusts a motor vehicle to another person due to drinking or any other reason attributable to driving disability, it is reasonable to view that the owner or the holder of the motor vehicle has an objective and external benefit from the operation control and operation of the motor vehicle in relation to the victim of the accident caused by the negligence of the above substitute driver.
The Supreme Court Decision 2005Da25755 Decided September 29, 2005 cited by Defendant B is that the owner or holder of a motor vehicle has no operating profit and control over the “in the internal relationship with an acting driver.”