beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the costs of appeal, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the pertinent part is modified or added as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts used or added;
A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the first instance: ① “0 won” in the first instance 18, as “61,50,000 won”; ② “Plaintiff” in the first instance 16, as “the Defendant,” respectively, against the Defendant.
B. Among the written judgment of the court of first instance, ① “The testimony of the witness F of the trial at the trial” was added, and ② “The testimony of the witness F of the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the level of 6th page “................, even based on the testimony of the witness F of the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the bar of D’s storage tank, there seems to be no possibility of being flown into the shock valves in the gas charging process (Recording
C. On the 6th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added.
• Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should bear the responsibility under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act because the status of the operator of the instant vehicle at the time the instant accident occurred to D, not the Defendant.
However, “the person who operates an automobile for his own sake” under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act refers to the person who is in a position as a responsible subject to the control of the operation of the automobile and to enjoy the benefit therefrom, and the owner or the holder of the automobile shall be confirmed to be in a normal position. Thus, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the specific operation, which caused the accident, has completely lost the control of the operation and the profit from the operation of the owner, the holder shall be held liable for the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da7118, Aug. 9, 191). B of the Defendant’s driver.