(a) Where an accident occurs in the course of operating a repair business to return to the repair requester after being delivered by the repair business operator to the repair place or completing repair of the vehicle by the repair business operator, the location of the traffic control right and the criteria for determining such right;

(b) The case holding that a motor vehicle owner has the right to operate control and is held liable as an operator of a motor vehicle with respect to an accident that happens in the course of transportation and brought about by an employee of the motor vehicle owner by directly driving the motor vehicle after being delivered by him/her and then returned

A. The right to control the operation of a motor vehicle during the repair period, when it is delivered to a repair business operator, shall not be a motor vehicle owner unless there are special circumstances. However, it is difficult to uniformly determine whether any person has the right to control the operation of a motor vehicle in the course of repair, which is operated to return to the repair business operator after being delivered by the repair business operator to the repair business place by the repair business operator at the request of the owner of the repair business operator, in spite of the contents of the relevant repair entrustment contract, especially whether the requester has requested the transportation of the motor vehicle, transaction relations and practices in the past between the requester and the repair business operator, etc.

(b) The case holding that a motor vehicle owner has the right to control the operation of a motor vehicle and is held liable as an operator of a motor vehicle with respect to an accident that happens in the course of transport, which occurred after the employee of the motor vehicle owner has been transferred and brought to repair by him, and then

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Park Jae-Gyeong et al. and nine others

Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na60289 delivered on July 23, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in the case of non-party 1's replacement of the above non-party 1's vehicle for repair and maintenance of the above non-party 1's truck's vehicle operation, the above non-party 1's vehicle's replacement of the above non-party 1's truck's replacement of the above non-party 1's truck's replacement of the above 652's jun of the above 1's jun of the 1's jun of the 1's jun of the jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's jun's ju's ju's ju's ju's ju'.

In the event that a vehicle is delivered to a repair business operator for the repair of a motor vehicle, the right to operate control over the motor vehicle during the repair period is not for the owner of the motor vehicle, but for the repair business operator, unless there are special circumstances. However, it cannot be uniformly determined whether any person has the right to operate control over the motor vehicle during the repair period after being delivered by the repair business operator to the repair business place by the repair business operator at the request of the owner of the motor vehicle, or after completing the repair business, and then being delivered by the repair business operator to the repair business place, and it cannot be uniformly determined in consideration of the contents of the relevant repair entrustment contract, especially whether the requester has been requested to transport the motor vehicle, transaction relation and customs from the past with the requester and the repair business place, etc. In this case, according to the legal judgment of the court below, even if the defendant is well aware of the relationship between the non-party 1 and the repair business operator, and even if the defendant does not have to contact the repair business operator, if he is found to have the right to directly drive the motor vehicle and accepted the motor vehicle in this case.

The judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability for the return of a vehicle after repair of a motor vehicle by a motor vehicle repairer, or incomplete deliberation, incomplete reasoning, or inconsistent reasoning, and the Supreme Court precedents cited in the theory of lawsuit are different, and it is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case. The argument is without merit.

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