Liability of a person who rents his/her own vehicle and driver together;

A person who rents a motor vehicle owned by him/her to another person with a driver employed by him/her shall be liable as an employer unless there is any assertion that he/she was not negligent in the appointment of the driver in the event of an accident caused by negligence in the adjustment of driving of the motor vehicle by the driver.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1

Plaintiff 2 and two others

Bolimaly Trade Company

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap1049) in the first instance trial

The part against plaintiff 1 among the original judgment under paragraph (2) below shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount equivalent to 6,492 won and an amount equivalent to 5% per annum from October 13, 1969 to the date of full payment.

The remaining appeals by plaintiffs 1 and the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed, respectively.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising from the first and second trials between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be borne equally by the plaintiff 1 and the defendant, and the remaining costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

Of the amounts admitted in the original judgment, those for which the original judgment was not put by auction, and those for which this decision is delivered can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 850,00, KRW 50,00 for each of the remaining plaintiffs, and an amount of KRW 50,00 for each of them at the rate of five percent per annum from October 13, 1969 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The attorney of the plaintiffs shall revoke the part against the plaintiff 1 in the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 448,526 won with an annual rate of 5% from October 13, 1969 to the full payment date.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be decided by the judgment of the defendant and a provisional execution that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the defendant's attorney shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

In light of the above facts, the defendant's duty of care to carry the above 5 booms to the non-party 5 booms, 6 booms Gap's 5 booms, 9-5 booms, and 15 booms Gap's testimony to the non-party 1 and 2, and the non-party 3's co-defendant 4 is the defendant's vehicle's booms' booms' booms' 3 booms' booms' booms' booms' booms' booms' 3 booms' booms' booms' 3 booms' booms' booms' 3 booms's booms' 3 booms' booms' 3 booms' booms' 10 booms' 3 booms's booms's 1.

The defendant's assertion was made with the non-party 3, the driver's driver's license, who is the defendant's use of the truck owned by the defendant, and the defendant leased the truck to the defendant of the court of first instance and caused the accident as above. Thus, the defendant is not solely responsible for the defendant of the court of first instance. However, the above tort is not only about the tenant's business, but also about the tenant's business, and as long as it is proved that the non-party 3 was not negligent in the appointment, the defendant is responsible for the non-party 3's illegal act, which is his own use, unless there is any assertion that the non-party 3 was negligent in the appointment, as long as the non-party 3 was the defendant's employee appointed by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

It shall be considered as property damage.

According to Gap evidence 1 (No. 1) and evidence 3 (Simplified Life Table) without dispute, plaintiff 1 was born on March 2, 1941 and the average remaining life at the age of 28 years and 38.10 (year 66%) as of April 28, 194. According to the response to the fact inquiry conducted by the court below and the testimony of non-party 2 of the court below, the plaintiff 1 is able to recognize the fact that the average wage for the cargo work employed by the defendant of the court of first instance is 450 per day and 55 years until the age of 13,687 won (450 won x 365/12), since the monthly income of plaintiff 1 is 13,687 won, and the income tax under the Income Tax Act as of the above income x 896 won x 197,000 won for the above income x 200 won for the above accident, the plaintiff 1's net loss is 97.5% for the above loss of labor.

Finally, according to the above evidence No. 1 as to the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money, the plaintiff No. 2 is the plaintiff No. 1's wife, and the plaintiff No. 3 and the plaintiff No. 4 can recognize facts that they are their children. In light of the above facts, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff No. 1 had received mental distress from the plaintiff No. 1 itself and the remaining plaintiffs who are faced with the plaintiff No. 1's mental distress, and all circumstances revealed in the plaintiffs' age, academic background, property status, and other arguments recognized by the non-party No. 2's testimony of the court below as consolation money, the defendant should pay 60,000 won to the plaintiff No. 1 as consolation money and 30,000 won to the other plaintiffs

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the sum of 347,966 won as property damage and 60,000 won as consolation money, 407,966 won as well as 30,000 won as consolation money, and to the remaining plaintiffs, respectively, at the rate of 5% per annum from October 13, 1969 to the date of occurrence of an accident. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the above recognition scope and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. Since the part concerning plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 in the original judgment is just, the defendant's appeal against the above plaintiffs is dismissed, and since the part concerning the plaintiff 1 in the original judgment is partially unfair, the part against the plaintiff 1 in the original judgment is revoked, and the payment is ordered as prescribed in paragraph (2) of this Article, and the remainder of the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1 shall be dismissed as well as Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 96 of the provisional execution Act shall be applied to the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1.

Judges Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)