Whether the operating control relationship of a company leasing a vehicle affects the lessee's excessive operation and the lack of water surface (negative)

As a company leasing a vehicle, it cannot be said that there is a operating control relationship even when it is operated under the condition of excessive drinking and lack of water surface of the lessee.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Yong-Namn Co., Ltd. and one other

Busan District Court (83 Gohap275)

1. Of the original judgment, the part against Defendant Yong-Namkdong Co., Ltd. and each claim of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 against the plaintiff 10,853,387 won, 10,653,387 won against the plaintiff 2, and the part against the defendant 2 ordering payment in excess of the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from February 3, 1983 to the date of full payment, respectively, shall be revoked, and the claim of the plaintiff, etc. as to that part shall be dismissed.

2. Each appeal against the defendant of the plaintiff 1 and 2, each appeal against the plaintiff 3 and 4 and the remaining appeal against the plaintiff 1 and 2 are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, the total costs incurred between the plaintiff et al. and the defendant Yong-Namkdong Co., Ltd. are divided into two minutes, and the total costs incurred between the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al., the remaining one, the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al., and the plaintiff 3 and the defendant 4

4. From among the payment portion of paragraph (1), the part on which a sentence of provisional execution is not attached in the original judgment may be provisionally executed.

The defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 an amount of 26,56,973 won, 50,000 won, each of which is 25% per annum from the day following the service of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc. and provisional execution declaration.

The part against the defendant among the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The part against plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay 13,806,973 won each of them to the plaintiff 1 and 2 at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant, etc. at all of the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Liability for damages;

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1(호적등본), 2(제적등본), 3(호적등본), 갑 제2호증(사체검안서), 을 제1호증(계약서)의 각 기재와 원심의 형사기록검증결과중의 일부(단 뒤에 믿어쓰지 않는 부분 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 피고 2는 소외 1과 고등학교 동창생으로서 울산시 소재 현대중공업주식회사에서 근무하고, 망 소외 2는 소외 1과 대학동창생으로서 울산시 학성동 소재 대우상사에 근무하여 모두 울산시에 그 직장을 두고 있으면서 소외 1과 각 친구 사이이므로 1982. 11. 14. 부산시내 (명칭 생략)예식장에서 거행된 소외 1의 결혼식에 각 참석하고 돌아갔다가 그 이튿날 오후 그 전날의 약속에 따라 신혼여행에서 돌아오는 길에 울산에 들린 소외 1 부부를 방어진 횟집에서 다시 만나 음주하면서 위 부부를 함께 접대하다가 소외 1의 처가 그들의 만류에도 불구하고 친정에 돌아가야 한다고 고집하므로 망 소외 2의 제의에 따라 소외 1의 처가가 있는 김해까지 위 부부를 직접 데려다 주기로 의논이 되어 같은날 19:00경 울산시 신정동에 소재하는 주식회사 영남렌트카 울산지점에 함께가서 피고 2의 이름으로 자동차대여사업을 그 목적으로 하는 피고 주식회사 영남렌트카 소유의 임대용 (차량번호 생략) 포니승용차를 1982. 11. 16. 09:00까지 임대료 금 22,000원(임대료는 피고 2가 지급)에 임차한 후 뒷자리에는 위 부부를 태우고, 운전석옆자리에는 망 소외 2가 타고, 피고 2가 운전하여 1982. 11. 16. 01:00경 경남 김해군 장유면 수과리 소재 소외 1의 처가집까지 데려다 준 다음 피고 2는 위 친구 2명과 함께 그 집에서 맥주를 한 상자정도 마시고 위 차에서 잠시 잠을 자다가 같은날 05:00경 소외 2가 깨워 일어나 운전석옆자리에 소외 2를 태우고 위 자동차를 운전하여 울산으로 되돌아 오던중 같은날 06:40경 경남 울주군 웅촌면 대퇴리 앞 도로를 통과하다가 그 전날 저녁부터 그날 새벽까지의 과음과 수면부족으로 몹시 피로한 탓으로 순간적으로 운전대를 놓치는 바람에 위 승용차의 전면으로 도로 우측의 가로수를 충격하여 소외 2로 하여금 우측안와부 파열창, 두개골개방성 함몰골절등의 상해를 입게하여 병원으로 운송중 사망에 이르게 한 사실 및 원고 1은 망 소외 2의 처, 원고 2는 그의 자, 원고 3, 4는 그의 부모인 사실을 인정할 수 있고 이에 반하는 위 형사기록검증결과중의 일부(단 위에서 믿어 쓴 부분 제외)는 믿어쓰지 아니하고 달리 위 인정을 번복할 증거없는 바 위 인정사실관계하에서는 피고 2는 위와 같이 과음과 수면부족으로 몹시 피로한 상태에 있었으므로 충분한 휴식을 취한 연후에 운전하여야 하거나 자동차 핸들을 정확히 잡고 조작하는 등의 안전운전을 하여야 할 업무상의 주의의무가 있음에도 불구하고 이를 태만히 한 과실에 의한 그 자신의 위 불법행위로 인하여 망 소외 2와 원고들이 입은 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다 하겠으나, 피고 주식회사 영남렌트카는 위 차량에 대한 운행 지배자가 아니고 망 소외 2와 피고 2가 그 공동운행자라고 주장하므로 보건대 망 소외 2는 소외 1 부부를 위 울산에서 경남 김해까지 직접 자동차로 데려다 주기로 제의하고 피고 2와 함께 위 차량을 공동으로 임차하여 피고 2 운전의 위 차량의 조수석에 시종 자리잡고 운행하던중 이 사건 사고가 발생한 것이어서 피고 주식회사 영남렌트카로서는 피고 2등의 위 인정과 같은 과음과 수면부족상태하에서의 운행에까지 그 운행지배관계가 있다고는 할 수 없는 한편 망 소외 2는 피고 2와 위 차량의 공동운행자라 할 것이어서 피고 주식회사 영남렌트카에 대한 관계에 있어서는 자동차손해배상보장법 제3조 소정의 타인에는 해당되지 아니하여 위 보장법상의 위 차량운행자로서의 손해배상책임이 없다 할 것인즉 위 보장법에 의한 손해배상을 청구하는 원고등의 주장은 나머지 점에 대하여 더 살펴볼 것 없이 이유없다 할 것이다.

Meanwhile, according to the above facts, it can be known that Defendant 2 was aware that the accident in this case occurred due to Defendant 2's overwork from the beginning of the day immediately before the accident occurred to the new wall of the accident day, and the lack of water surface, and even at the same time, Defendant 2 was in joint control over the operation of the vehicle in this case, and thus, Defendant 2 had Defendant 2 restore the way to the direction by allowing Defendant 2 to take more waters, etc., and caused Defendant 2 to drive the vehicle in this case or drive the vehicle in a correct manner by operating the vehicle or operating the vehicle in this manner. However, even though Defendant 2 was to operate the vehicle in this case, it is necessary to make Defendant 2, who was diving in the above vehicle in this case, return to the new wall at five cc, and neglected the inaccurate driving of Defendant 2, which led to the accident in this case. Thus, the accident in this case, the above negligence in this case conflicts with each other, and the degree of exemption from liability for damages by Defendant 2, as well as the extent of exemption from liability for damages.

2. Scope of damages.

(A) The deceased’s lost profit

The above evidence Nos. 1-2 and 3-1, 2 (Simplified Life Mark and its contents) and Gap evidence Nos. 4 (written confirmation) which are acknowledged to have been authenticity by the testimony of the witnesses set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 and 3-1-2 and no dispute over the formation of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 and 3-1-2, comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the testimony of the witnesses as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 4 (written confirmation), the deceased non-party Nos. 2 shall be male and female at the end of August 25, 1956 and their average life life shall be 40.79, May 17, 1982 to 374-2, Ulsan-si, 1982. The plaintiffs shall be deemed to have been working for 260,000 won monthly in accordance with the above average living cost of the deceased x 1-3,000 won until 25-4,000 won, respectively.

(B) Consolation money

Since the above deceased's death due to the accident of this case is recognized in light of the empirical rule that the above deceased's wife, his wife, children, and the plaintiffs who are his parents suffered mental pain and will receive it in the future, Defendant 2 is obligated to receive it in money. As seen earlier, the above defendant should pay 1,200,000 won to the above deceased, 1,000,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and 80,000,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 50,000 won to the plaintiff 3, and 4 respectively, considering the status relationship as seen earlier, the circumstances and result of the accident of this case, and the degree of negligence of both parties, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

(C) Inheritance relationship

Defendant 2’s compensation amount is KRW 19,706,775 in total ( KRW 18,506,775 + KRW 1,200,00 in total). However, Plaintiff 1 is the wife of the above deceased, and Plaintiff 2 was as seen earlier, the damage claim of the deceased was inherited in KRW 9,853,387 in proportion to their respective statutory shares of inheritance.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 2 is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from February 3, 1983 to the date of accident of this case to Plaintiff 1, 10,653,387 won and 10,653,387 won to Plaintiff 3, and 4, respectively, and damages for delay at the rate of 10% per annum from February 3, 1983 to the date of complete payment (the plaintiffs seek damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum per annum from the date of special cases concerning the promotion, etc. of lawsuit, but the above defendant's claims against the plaintiff 2, etc. against the plaintiff 9, etc. are reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims against the plaintiff 2, etc. against the plaintiff 9, etc. against the plaintiff 2, as well as the remaining claims against the plaintiff 2, etc. against the plaintiff 9, etc. are revoked and dismissed as to each of the above part of the appeal against the plaintiff 1, etc. against the plaintiff 2, respectively.

Judges Jeong Man-man (Presiding Judge)