In the event that the owner of a salary class suffered an injury by a retailer on the part of a retailer who was on board the vehicle for his/her own sake during his/her operation, whether the retailer was responsible for the injury under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (affirmative)

The Defendant agreed to pay monthly operating expenses to Nonparty A for the sales of household goods at the expense of Nonparty A, who operated the vehicle owned by the Defendant for the sake of Nonparty A’s business. In the event that the Plaintiff was injured while driving the vehicle on the part of the Defendant at the time of the accident, as a sales salesperson of Nonparty A, the operation of the above salary class for Nonparty A or the Defendant itself, and the Plaintiff constitutes “other person” under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Lee Young-il et al.

Park Jin-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The High Court Decision 90Na2352 delivered on July 5, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendant is justified in the judgment of the court below that the defendant is a person who operates an automobile for himself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter "Act"), since the defendant was driving the 6Da5422, which was owned by the defendant, and causing a traffic accident to inflict an injury on the plaintiff Lee Young-il, who was on board the above 6Da5422.

2. The court below's explanation on the occurrence of the liability for damages under paragraph (1) of this Article is that the court below accepted it of the judgment of the court of first instance and decided the scope of the liability for damages under paragraph (2). Thus, the court below's explanation on the occurrence of the liability for damages under paragraph (1) of this Article shall be deemed as accepting the whole of the reasons in the judgment of the court

3. The court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that the defendant's operation of the above-wing vehicle was caused by the accident of this case and the plaintiff's operation did not constitute the non-party or the other person under Article 3 of the Act because the defendant's operation of the above-wing vehicle for the business of the non-party Kim Jong-han (the non-party) who operated the same-sex company's business in the name of the same-sex company. The operation expenses were borne by the non-party and the defendant agreed to receive monthly payments and operated the above-wing vehicle. The plaintiff Lee Young-il was a salesperson of the above same-sex company at the time of the accident, and the defendant's operation of the above-wing vehicle did not constitute the non-party or the other person under Article 3 of the Act, even though it was the same as the operation circumstances of the above-wing vehicle, it cannot be said that the defendant is not a person operating the motor vehicle for his own own interest but the plaintiff or the plaintiff is not a person under Article 3 of the Act.

4. Therefore, the issue is groundless.

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.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)