(a) In a case where an accident occurred in the course of operation by a driver on the same direction as his/her destination takes along the south of his/her destination, whether the liability for damages can be mitigated by recognizing the possession, etc. of the vehicle to the above wife;

B. In the case above, whether the wife is obligated to take care of safe operation against the driver

A. In a case where a driver of a vehicle B, who operated the said vehicle at the time of the accident, was accompanied by Party B, who is his wife in the same direction as the destination while driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident, the owner of the said vehicle cannot be recognized. Moreover, in light of the purpose and circumstances of the operation of the said vehicle, imposing liability on Party B for damages in light of the purpose and circumstances of the said vehicle, etc., it is not very unreasonable in light of the principle of good faith or the principle of equity, the lower court’s determination

B. In such cases as above, Party A cannot be deemed to have a duty of care to call attention to the driver so that safe operation, such as speeding, etc., can be prevented in advance.

A. Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act; Articles 396 and 763 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2580 delivered on September 22, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2994 delivered on December 22, 1987

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Song-sik, Park Jong-soo, and Choi Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na3109 delivered on February 13, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As duly determined by the court below, if the non-party, who is the driver of the vehicle in this case owned by the defendant, loaded ten boxes of drinking water on the vehicle at the time of the accident in accordance with the direction of the defendant, and delivered to the moving side of the Gyeonggi-gun, the plaintiff, who is his wife in the same direction as the destination, cannot be recognized as the owner of the above vehicle. Furthermore, in light of the purpose of the above vehicle operation and the situation surrounding the vehicle operation, imposing liability for damages on the defendant is not deemed to be very unreasonable in light of the principle of good faith or the principle of equity, and thus, the decision of the court below which did not reduce the defendant's liability for damages to the same purport is correct, and there is no violation of the law of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The precedents of the lawsuit are different cases, and therefore, the pertinent precedent of this case cannot

2. If the operating circumstances of the instant vehicle are the same as above, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff has a duty of care to call attention to the driver so that the driver can be able to ensure safe operation, such as speed, and prevent the accident in advance. In the same purport, we accept the decision of the court below that the Plaintiff, who is only the driver of the vehicle, did not have such duty of care as above, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. The precedents of the lawsuit are different from those of the case, and it does not constitute

3. 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 Song Man-Ba (Presiding Justice)