The case holding that where a small-scale transportation business entity, in violation of the terms and conditions of an entrustment management agreement with a route truck transportation company, individually commissioned a direct transport of cargo and caused the number of employees to operate the cargo, the company lost the management control over the vehicle involved in the accident.

If a small-scale transportation business operator is entrusted with the transportation of cargo and the collection of cargo in a certain area in Seoul Metropolitan City under the order of the company's overall transportation plan according to a transportation contract with a route truck transportation business operator, and he/she causes an accident after being entrusted with the transportation of the cargo individually in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the operation of the vehicle involved in the accident is entirely carried out against the will of the above transportation business operator, and the above transportation business operator's license business operator cannot exercise his/her right to direct and supervise the operation of the vehicle as a result of the failure of the above business operator to exercise his/her right to direct and supervise the operation of the vehicle.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1803 (Gong1990, 2008)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Judgment of the court below] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na36739 delivered on August 20, 1991

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above truck was operated by the non-party 1, who is a corporation engaged in the above truck trucking business, and was granted the terms and conditions of authorization to connect the above truck with the non-party 3 tons or less of the above truck with the above transportation network, and accordingly, the transportation of the cargo to the non-party 1 was operated by the non-party 1, who was entrusted with the above transportation network's transportation business by the non-party 2's office using the above transportation network's general transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network's transportation network'.

First of all, examining the relationship between the defendant company and the above non-party 1 on the basis of the above facts established by the court below, the cargo handling office between the defendant company and the above non-party 1 is recognized as the existence of a contract for the entrusted management between the companies with independent personality. However, in the actual situation, the defendant company's own business activities are allowed to exclusively entrust the transportation of the above cargo and the collection of parts of the above cargo through the above contract to the above non-party 1, a small shipping company, and the above non-party 1, with the trade name of the defendant company, has carried out cargo transportation business using the truck of this case with the name of the defendant company in response to the order from the defendant company. Thus, the above non-party 1 cannot be viewed as a position that can be seen as being the same as the employee of the defendant company, and therefore, it is natural to view that the defendant company is in a position of controlling the operation of the truck of this case to the general and abstract extent and toward its profits.

However, as determined by the court below, if the above non-party 1, at the time of the actual operation of the truck which was the cause of the accident of this case, violated the terms and conditions of the consignment management contract entered into between the defendant company and caused an accident by the number of drivers who were commissioned to transport the cargo individually, and caused an accident to the above number of drivers while driving the truck for the purpose of their duties, the operation of the above accident vehicle is entirely carried out against the will of the defendant company, and the defendant company cannot be deemed to have lost the operation control over the vehicle as a result of the failure to exercise the actual right to direct and supervise the operation of the above vehicle, and therefore, the defendant company shall not be deemed to be liable for damages caused by the above accident.

Ultimately, the decision of the court below that the defendant company is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as the operator of the truck of this case is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the operator of the automobile for himself as prescribed by the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and it is clear that this would have affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the ground for appeal is with merit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)