Whether operation control and operating profit is transferred to a maintenance company if it is delivered to the maintenance company for repairing the accident vehicle.

If the maintenance company has received an accident vehicle in order to repair it, it is reasonable to view that the operation control and the operation of the accident vehicle have been transferred to the maintenance company from the time of delivery to the time of return.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Korea Plast Industrial Co., Ltd. and 1 other

(1) The defendant Korean Pharmacopoeia Co., Ltd. shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 an amount of KRW 12,191,816, KRW 500,00 per annum from November 12, 1982 to the day of full payment.

(2) The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Korean Plastic Industries Co., Ltd. and the defendant Korean Plastic Industries Co., Ltd are dismissed.

(3) Of the costs of lawsuit, it is divided into two parts between the plaintiffs and the defendant Korean Pharmacopoeia, and the others are borne by the same defendant, and the others are borne by the plaintiffs and the defendant Korean Plast Industrial Co., Ltd.

(4) The sum of the above Paragraph (1) above may be provisionally executed only by 2/3.

The plaintiffs jointly and severally pay to plaintiffs 1 and 2 an amount of KRW 27,686,329, respectively, and to plaintiffs 3 and 4 an amount of KRW 1,00,000 per annum from November 12, 1982 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit were assessed against the Defendants and declared provisional execution.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

성립에 각 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1(호적등본), 2(주민등록표등본), 갑 제2호증의 1, 2(각 자동차등록원부), 갑 제5호증(판결), 갑 제6호증의 1(기록표지), 2(목록), 갑 제8호증(공소장), 갑 제12호증의 1(기록표지), 4(실황조사서) 5, 17(각 진단서), 갑 제13, 15증(각 진술조서), 갑 제14호증의 1, 2(각 피의자신문조서), 갑 제16호증(사고발생보고), 갑 제18호증의 1(항소기록표지), 2(공판조서), 3(판결), 갑 제19, 20호증(각 준비서면), 갑 제22호증(증인신문조서)의 각 기재(갑 제 20, 22호증의 각 기재중 뒤에서 믿지않는 부분 제외), 증인 소외 1, 증인 소외 2, 증인 소외 3의 각 증언(각 뒤에서 믿지않는 부분 제외) 및 변론의 전 취지를 종합하면 소외 2가 1982. 11. 11. 16 : 20쯤 소외 4 소유의 (차량번호 1 생략)호 브리샤 승용차를 운전하여 서울 종로구 내자동 169 앞 편도 2차선 도로를 사직공원쪽에서 종합청사쪽으로 1차선을 따라 진행하다가 그곳을 우측에서 좌측으로 무단횡단하는 성명불상 어린이를 발견하고 당황한 나머지 조향장치를 좌측으로 너무 과도하게 틀어 중앙선을 침범함으로써 반대방향에서 1차선을 따라 진행하여 오던 망 소외 5 운전의 90씨씨 오토바이를 승용차 앞 범퍼로 받아 넘어뜨려 위 소외 5에게 측두골 및 뇌기저골 골절상등의 상해를 입게 하고 그로 인하여 같은달 20. 07 : 00쯤 서울시내 고려대학교 의과대학 부속병원에서 뇌연수마비등으로 사망에 이르게 한 사실, 사고차량의 소유자는 소외 4인데 피고 한국프라스틱공업주식회사(이하 한국프라스틱이라 한다) 소속 운전사인 소외 1이 위 사고 이틀전인 같은달 9. 19 : 00쯤 같은 피고 소유의 (차량번호 2 생략)호 코티나 승용차에 업무상 상공부에 일보러가는 같은회사 상무이사인 소외 3을 태우고 서울시내 내자호텔앞을 진행하다가 운전부주의로 마침 그곳에서 신호대기중이던 소외 4의 동생인 소외 6이 운전하는 사고차량의 뒷범퍼를 들이받아 손괴시키자 소외 3이 소외 6에게 위 코티나 승용차는 피고 한국프라스틱 소유의 차량이고, 회사업무수행중 위와 같은 사고로 일으켰으니 그 수리비를 피고 한국프라스틱측에서 부담하겠다고 말하고 자신의 명함과 차량검사증을 보관시킨 사실, 소외 1이 상무인 소외 3의 지시로 이틀후인 같은달 11. 11 : 00쯤 서울 종로구 사직동에 있는 사고차량을 운전하던 소외 6의 건축설계사무소에 찾아가서 수리비로 금 35,000원을 주고 위 접촉사고를 해결하려 하였으나, 소외 6이 이를 거절하고 사고차량을 수리하여 줄 것을 요구하여 소외 6으로부터 사고차량을 인도받아 피고 한국프라스틱의 계열회사인 피고 한국화약주식회사(이하 피고 한국화약이라 한다) 소속 차량정비공인 소외 2로 하여금 사고차량을 수리하여 소외 6에게 되돌려 주게하고 사고차량을 소외 2에게 인도한 사실, 소외 2는 사고차량을 인도받아 이를 운전하여 서울 은평구 녹번동 소재 피고 한국화약소속 차량 정비차고에 가지고 가서 사고차량을 수리한 다음 이를 소외 6에게 인도하여 주기 위하여 운행하던중 이 사건 교통사고를 일으킨 사실, 피고 한국화약소속 위 차량정비차고에서는 같은 피고 계열회사 직원들의 지시에 따라 계열회사 차량만을 수리, 정비하고 일반차량은 정비하지 않지만 소외 2는 소외 1로부터 피고 한국프라스틱이 사고차량을 수리해 주어야 할 책임을 지게 된 경위를 듣고, 사고차량을 인도받아 위 차량정비차고에 가지고 가서 이를 수리하게 된 사실, 원고 1, 2는 망 소외 5의 부모이고, 원고 3, 4는 그 동생들인 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 위 인정에 어긋나는 갑 제20, 22호증의 각 기재 부분과 위 증인들의 각 증언부분은 믿지 않으며 달리 반증없다.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that Nonparty 2 received the vehicle from Nonparty 1 to bring it into the said vehicle maintenance vehicle as a performance of his duties. Since the Defendant’s Republic of Korea acquired the operation control and operational profit with respect to the vehicle in question from the time to the time of its return, it is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the above deceased and the plaintiffs due to the above accident caused by the operation of the said vehicle. However, according to the evidence above, the above deceased’s operation of the vehicle on his own as a person who operated the vehicle on his own behalf is liable to compensate for damages caused by the above accident. However, according to the above evidence, the above deceased’s operation of the vehicle on his own without the driver’s license, while driving the vehicle on his own as a second line, without wearing the safety mother without the driver’s license, can recognize the fact that the above accident was caused by the above accident. Such negligence of the deceased was caused by the above accident, and thus, it is reasonable to consider it in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant.

As acknowledged above, the plaintiffs' attorney, as a driver of the defendant Korean Plast, shall damage the accident vehicle by shocking the accident vehicle during the performance of his duties, and in order to repair the accident vehicle by being delivered by the non-party 4, the owner of the accident vehicle, and let the non-party 2, the maintenance shop mechanic of the defendant Korean Pharmacopoeia, who is an affiliated company, repair the accident vehicle and return it to the owner under his own control, so he is not only the person operating the vehicle for his own interest but also the non-party 1's user, who is responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the above deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident. However, since the non-party 1, who is an employee of the defendant Korean Plastic, delivered the accident vehicle to the non-party 2 who is an employee of the defendant Korean Plastic, the driver of the accident vehicle from that time to that of the defendant Korean Plastic, the driver's ability to control the accident vehicle shall be transferred to the defendant Korean Pream, and thus, the non-party 2's accident vehicle cannot be viewed as an accident and the plaintiffs' claim for compensation.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) passive damage;

In full view of evidence No. 1-1, evidence No. 13, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 3-1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 21 (written evidence of witness examination), evidence No. 4 (written confirmation), evidence No. 7, and evidence No. 5 (written confirmation), evidence No. 5 (written evidence No. 4), and the whole purport of testimony and oral argument of the above witness who were born on July 13, 1962, the deceased was a male who was born in March 20, and his average life life was 46 years at the time of the above accident. The above deceased was engaged in the non-party No. 7 (Trade Address omitted)'s business management at the above time of the accident, which is called "non-party No. 7 (Trade Address omitted)", and the defendant's testimony at the above time of the death of the deceased as an automobile repair machine, and it cannot be acknowledged that the above part of the evidence No. 50,000 won was not in dispute between the parties.

Therefore, as requested by the plaintiffs, the deceased suffered from the loss that he could not obtain the revenue of the monthly income, which was obtained by deducting the living expenses from the monthly income that can be earned each month, from the above (i.e., the remaining period of 392 months or less in the convenience of calculation) to at least 392 months from the time when he completed military service for 3 years after the accident (i.e., the period of less than 392 months).

However, since the plaintiffs seek payment of all of these damages at once as of the time of the accident, it is clear that the plaintiffs would be entitled to such payment if the permission at the time of the accident is calculated in accordance with the Radice accounting method that deducts legal intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month as welfare, it is clear that the plaintiffs would be entitled to 27,690,905 won [=166,666 won].

(b) Negligence offsetting, etc.;

Therefore, the passive damage suffered by the deceased non-party 5 caused by the above accident is the amount of the above recognition, but considering the above degree of negligence on the deceased, the amount of compensation to the deceased is 19,383,633 won (=27,690,905 x 70/100).

(c) Compensation money;

Since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the deceased non-party 5 died due to the accident in this case, and that the plaintiffs in the family relation as seen above suffered considerable mental pain, the defendant Korean Pharmacopoeia is obligated to receive monetary compensation. Considering various circumstances such as the above deceased and the plaintiffs' age, family relations, property and education degree, accident circumstance, and result, etc. as shown in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to pay the above deceased 3,00,000, and 1,000,000, and 500,000,000, respectively, to the other plaintiffs.

(d) Inheritance relations; and

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1-1, since the deceased non-party 5's property successors can recognize the facts of the plaintiff 1 and 2 who are parents, 22,383 won of the above deceased's property damage and 3,000,000 won of consolation money and 11,191,816 won (=22,383,633 won x 1/2), each of the above plaintiffs succeeded to the above plaintiffs' property damages according to their respective legal shares.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant Korean Pharmacopoeia is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 12,191,816 won each (i.e., 11,191,816 +1,000,000) and to the rest of the plaintiffs 50,000 won each, and damages for delay at an annual interest rate of 5% per annum of the Civil Code from November 12, 1982 to the next full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Korean Pharmacopoeia are justified within the above recognition scope and just accepted within the above recognition scope, and both claims against the defendant Korean Pharmacopoeia and claims against the other defendant Korean War shall be dismissed. With respect to the payment of litigation costs, Articles 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to a provisional execution declaration.

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)