Whether an employee is a person who operates an automobile for his/her own sake

In the so-called "motor vehicle entry", a person who is permitted to transport a motor vehicle is indicated in his/her own business act in an external relationship, so even if the designated owner is employed by the operator of the motor vehicle or the operator of the maintenance hole, etc., the trustee shall be deemed to be a person who automatically operates the motor vehicle for himself/herself, considering it objectively and objectively. Therefore, the trustee shall be liable under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

Mo-dong Transport Corporation

Gangnam branch court of the Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (71 Gohap84, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The part against the plaintiff 1 in the original judgment against the defendant is reversed, and the payment order is revoked in excess of the next part ordering payment, and the corresponding plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay 800,610 won to the plaintiff 1 with an annual interest rate of 5% from June 17, 1969 to the time of full payment.

The defendant's remaining appeals against the plaintiff 1 and all remaining appeals against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay 50,00 won to the plaintiff 1, 913,560 won, and 50,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 30,000 won per annum to the plaintiff 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively, and 30,000 won per annum from June 17, 1969 to the time of full payment.

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

Revocation of the original judgment and dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim

As Nonparty 1’s act of operating the above vehicle with Nonparty 1’s duty to maintain and maintain the vehicle, Nonparty 1’s owner of the above 7-89 vehicle, and then Nonparty 1’s owner of the above 7-party 1’s vehicle’s vehicle operation under the supervision of Nonparty 1’s owner of the above 3-party 1’s vehicle, as it appears that the above 3-party 1’s act of operating the above 3-party 1’s vehicle constitutes an accident, and thus, Nonparty 2’s act of operating the above 9-party 1’s vehicle with the above 3-party 1’s vehicle’s duty to maintain and maintain the vehicle at the time of the above 7-party 1’s vehicle operation without any dispute over the above 9-party 1’s own vehicle operation. Thus, the above 3-party 1’s act of operating the above 9-party 1’s vehicle with his own intention to prevent the above 3-party 1 from operating the above 1’s vehicle without any fault.

Therefore, as to the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable for damages, in full view of the above 1,2, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-4,78,9's physical appraisal result (not reliance on the result of physical appraisal of the defendant's application at the trial where it is placed) and the purport of oral argument at the above 37 years old and 35 years old, and the average remaining life of 656 won were received at the above 98 won while working for the above factory crushing machine operation. Since the above 1, 300 won was removed from the above 1,50 won, the above 1,50 won was deducted from the above 1,50 won, 30 won was reduced from the above 1,50 won was deducted from the above 2,500 won was reduced from the above 1,500 won was reduced from the above 1,600 won was deducted from the total amount of 1,960 won was deducted from the above 19,600 won was deducted from the above 19.

Next, according to the contents of Gap evidence No. 1, as to plaintiff 1, his wife, plaintiff 3, plaintiff 4, plaintiff 5, and plaintiff 6 can recognize the facts that he is his parent. Thus, the plaintiff 1's wife, plaintiff 7, and plaintiff 8 can easily recognize that the plaintiff 1 suffered a considerable mental distress due to the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money in relation to the amount of consolation money, considering various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the plaintiff 1's status relation, age, social status, the part and degree of the plaintiff 1's injury, the ground for the defendant's liability, etc., the consolation money amount is reasonable for 100,000 won against the plaintiff 1, 50,000 won against the plaintiff 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages from loss of profit to the plaintiff 1 at the rate of 5% per annum, which is a civil law court, from June 17, 1969 to the day after the accident occurred, as the damages from loss of profit amount of KRW 700,610, the sum of the above damages from loss of profit amount of KRW 800,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 500, and the remainder of the damages from the plaintiff 20,000, KRW 500, the damages from loss of profit amount of KRW 50,000, the damages from loss of profit amount of KRW 50,00, and the damages from delay amount of KRW 70,610, and the damages from loss of profit amount of KRW 30,00,000, the damages from the above damages amount of KRW 50,000, the damages from the above damages amount of KRW 50,000,000,000.

Judge Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)