In case of an accident that has occurred during the trial operation of a motor vehicle agent, the case where the requester recognizes liability as the motor vehicle operator.

The repair work is simple and short time and there was no need to conduct life trial operation. If the repair business operator inflicts an injury on a third party during the trial operation with the consent of the repair requester who was at the work site under each subparagraph, the repair requester shall be liable under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act as a person who has the operation control and operation profit.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 74Da2029 decided Apr. 13, 1976 (Law No. 756(2)(82), No. 1256 of the Civil Code, No. 220(Sang-36)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant 1

Defendant 2

Incheon District Court of the first instance (86 Gohap1420)

1. The plaintiffs' losing part against the defendant 1 who ordered payment under the original judgment shall be revoked.

2. Defendant 1 shall pay to Plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 8,616,503, KRW 7,523,903, KRW 500,00, and an amount of KRW 500 per annum from August 29, 1986 to the day of full payment.

3. Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the total costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1 are five minutes, and the remaining costs are borne by the same defendant, and the remaining one is borne by the plaintiffs, and the costs of appeal incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant 2 are borne by the same defendant.

5. In the case of paragraph (1) of the original judgment, the part on which the execution has not been declared and that of paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 13,131,484 won, 11,917,484 won to the plaintiffs 2, and 1,00,000 won to the remaining plaintiffs, and 5% per annum from August 29, 1986 to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

The plaintiffs: the same purport as the above-mentioneds 1 and 2, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and a provisional execution is declared.

Defendant 2: Revocation of the part against Defendant 2 in the original judgment, and the corresponding plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

In light of the above facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (Death), Gap's evidence Nos. 8-4 (except for the part which was not trusted by the court below), 10, and Eul's evidence Nos. 2 (report of traffic accident), and if the defendant's testimony of non-party 1 and 2 were gathered to repair the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2's testimony of the court below, the defendant 1 had the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2 agreed to repair the above non-party 1 to repair the above non-party 1 and to repair the above non-party 2's 1 and to repair the above non-party 2's 1 and the non-party 2's 1 and the non-party 2 agreed to repair the above non-party 1 to repair the above non-party 1 and to repair the plaintiff's 1,000-party 2's 1,000-party 2.

Since the legal relationship requesting repair of a motor vehicle is related to a contract for the purpose of completion of repair works, the control of the motor vehicle during the repair works shall be deemed to have been performed by the repair business operator. On the other hand, the motor vehicle repair business operator is deemed to have been harmed when the repair of the motor vehicle is completed, barring special circumstances, the liability for the accident caused by the motor vehicle during the repair works, which is a process of performing the repair works, is limited to the repair business operator, unless there are special circumstances. However, in this case, the above repair works are simple and free of charge within the extremely short time, and as such, the above repair works are completed by the repair business operator, and the above repair business operator is no longer required to conduct the repair inspection while driving the motor vehicle on the spot, and it is waiting for the above repair business operator to do so, and thus, the above repair business operator is deemed to have been in the status of operating the motor vehicle under which the above repair business operator actually controlled the operation of the motor vehicle on the part of the defendant, who is an employee of the above 13.20 1.

However, according to the above evidence, the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the non-party 1 who continued the accident area at a speed of 50 kilometers per hour without looking at the front of the crosswalk, but on the other hand, the above accident area as the non-party 1 did not have any signal, etc. as the second line main road, and thus, the above accident area should cross the road immediately after looking at the movement of the vehicle in spite of the fact that the vehicle should cross the road without neglecting it, it can be recognized that the above accident was caused by the above accident while crossinging the road immediately without neglecting it, so such negligence of the non-party 1 should be considered in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, and it is reasonable to view that the above ratio exceeds 10/100 in light of the above facts.

As to this, Defendant 1 asserted to the effect that the plaintiffs received gold 2,300,000 won from Nonparty 1 and renounced the right to claim damages of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, but according to the whole purport of the statement and oral argument of No. 3 (Agreement) without dispute, the plaintiff 1 representing the plaintiffs, who caused the accident of this case at the time of September 13, 1986, represented by the non-party 1, who was detained by the non-party 4, as part of the damages for which the above non-party 1 would receive from the non-party 1, who was detained, and who was not punished by the criminal punishment of the non-party 1. Thus, the above defendant's defense is groundless.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Expected income;

If the above evidence Nos. 1 and 6-2 of evidence Nos. 6-1 and 6-1 and 6-2 (Simplified Life Table and Contents) are collected, the above deceased's health female children who were born on July 25, 1976 at the time of the accident of this case and were born about about 63 years in the future, and there is no counter-proof. The fact that the wage of adult female workers engaged in general urban work from the accident of this case to the time of the closing of argument in the trial of this case is about 4,800 per day, the above deceased is using 1/3 of the income as daily expenses, and there is no dispute between the parties, while the ordinary daily work can be conducted until the age of 55 until the end of the age of 55.

According to the above facts, among 432 months from July 24, 1996 to July 24, 2032 when the above deceased reached the age of 55 due to the above accident, the above deceased suffered losses from monthly income of 80,000 won (gold 4,800 won x 25 x 252/3) calculated by deducting living expenses from the monthly income that can be earned each month during 420 months after the plaintiffs sought by the plaintiffs among 432 months from July 24, 1996 when he reached the age of 5/12 of age due to the above accident. Thus, the plaintiff 1 and 2, the heir of the above deceased, sought to pay the entire damages at once as at the time of the accident, the above amount of damages shall be reduced to 14,859,616 [the amount of damages to be reduced to 80,000 won, 8282-46.684], and thus, the above amount of damages shall be reduced to 146.6.6

(b) Medical expenses;

If the statement of No. 5-4 (money) evidence No. 5-2, the authenticity of which is recognized by the testimony of Non-Party 5 by Non-Party 5, and the testimony of the above witness are collected from the whole purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff 1 can be acknowledged to have disbursed a gold of KRW 1,00,000 to the Incheon Hospital on Aug. 30, 1986.

(c) Funeral expenses.

The fact that Plaintiff 1, his father, paid funeral expenses of KRW 214,00 within the scope of the procedure permitted by the Family Rite Act is not a dispute between the parties.

(d) Negligence, offsetting, etc.;

Therefore, property damage suffered by the above deceased and the plaintiff 1 caused by the above accident shall be KRW 14,859,616, and KRW 1,214,00 ($1,00,000 + KRW 214,00) by the plaintiff 1. However, due to the above's negligence as seen earlier, it is reasonable to reduce the amount to be compensated by the above deceased from KRW 13,373,654 ($ 14,859,616 + 90/100) and the amount to be compensated by the above plaintiff 1,092,60 ($1,214,000 x 90/100). Meanwhile, the amount to be compensated by the above plaintiff 1 shall be reduced from KRW 1,230,00, KRW 200, KRW 214,000, KRW 214,000, KRW 300, KRW 1305,000.

(e) consolation money;

In light of the empirical rule that the deceased died from the accident of this case and that the plaintiffs who are related to his status as well as their above are suffering from considerable mental pain, the defendants are obligated to give monetary compensation. Thus, considering all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, the amount of consolation money shall be set at KRW 2,00,000, KRW 1,000,000 for each of the above deceased, and KRW 50,000 for each of the remaining plaintiffs, considering the circumstance and result of the accident of this case, the degree of negligence of both parties, their age, family relations, property, and level of education.

(f) Inheritance relationship;

The right to claim compensation of KRW 13,073,654 (gold KRW 11,073,654 + KRW 2,00,000) of the deceased’s aggregate amount of damages recognized above was jointly inherited by Plaintiff 1 and 2, who is the property inheritor, according to their respective statutory shares of inheritance, and the above plaintiffs succeeded to and acquired each amount of KRW 6,536,827 (gold KRW 13,073,654 + 1/2).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay to each plaintiff 1 the amount of 8,629,427 won (gold KRW 6,536,827 + KRW 1,092,600 + KRW 1,000), and 7,536,827 won (gold KRW 6,536,827 + KRW 1,000) to the plaintiff 2, and 50,000 won to the remaining plaintiffs and damages for delay from August 29, 1986 to the day of full payment, which are 5% per annum of the Civil Procedure Act, which are 9% per annum of the above-mentioned damages for delay. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the above-mentioned recognized scope and the remainder is without merit. Accordingly, the court below's judgment is different and it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant 1, and it is reasonable to accept the remainder of the damages for delay from the plaintiff 29 to the above 360,500,000 won.

Judges Lee Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)