The case holding that the victim cannot assert that the owner of the vehicle is a third person under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act after borrowing the vehicle without compensation;

In the event of an accident that occurred due to the care of a driver while the victim borrowed a vehicle owned by the defendant without compensation for the travel of the members of the fraternity, the operating expenses shall be jointly borne by the members of the fraternity, and the driving of the vehicle shall be left to one of the members of the fraternity, and the driver was in the position of a person operating the vehicle for himself under Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act, which has the operating control and the operating profit at the time of the accident, and it seems that the operation control and the operating profit could prevent the occurrence of the accident more specific and directly, compared to the defendant who is the vehicle owner, so it cannot be argued that the defendant is another person under the same Act.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1388 (Gong1987, 1791) Decided October 28, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 88Meu12599 (Gong1989, 1148)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 6 others (Law Firm Dong-gu, Attorneys Lee Dong-pop et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Ho Ho Ho Ho-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na45993 delivered on January 10, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party 1 was deceased of the deceased's loss and the non-party 1's loss since the non-party 1, the borrower, was in a position of operating the motor vehicle for himself as prescribed in Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act, which had a driving control and operating profit at the time of the accident, on his own account, from the non-party 1, the plaintiff 1, who was registered in the name of the defendant on the register of the motor vehicle for his usual business, without compensation, and the driver was entrusted to the non-party 1, the plaintiff 1, the holder of the driver's license. The driver's license of the non-party 1, who was the non-party 1, was on the day and at the same place as the driver's attention, and the accident occurred during his driver's license, and the accident occurred to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who was on the part of the non-party 1.

In light of the records, we agree with the above judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to others under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, or in finding facts, and there is no reason to argue.

Therefore, all appeals are 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)