logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1994. 9. 23. 선고 94다21672 판결
[손해배상(자)][공1994.11.1.(979),2796]
Main Issues

Standard for determining whether a person who sells an automobile in installments controls the operation of an automobile

Summary of Judgment

The Act on Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation includes not only cases where a de facto control relationship exists between a holder and a driver, but also cases where a conceptual control relationship exists indirectly or through a third party’s management. Thus, whether a person who sells an automobile in installments controls the operation of the automobile can be evaluated as a seller’s duty to interfere with or control the buyer’s operation of the automobile by taking into account the substantive relationship between the seller and the buyer.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Reference Cases

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant-Appellant

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Judgment of the lower court

Daejeon District Court Decision 93Na527 delivered on March 25, 1994

Text

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the defendant delivered the defendant to the non-party and delivered the documents necessary for registration to the non-party, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of lawsuit. The above non-party's assertion that the above non-party illegally affixed a number plate to the above Orala, and it is not possible to recognize the above assertion. Thus, the theory of lawsuit that criticizes the judgment of the court below is not acceptable

On the second ground for appeal

The Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act includes not only cases where a de facto control relationship exists between a holder and a driver, but also cases where there exists a conceptual control relationship through the management by a third party. Thus, whether a seller of an automobile is controlling the operation of the automobile shall be determined by social norms by examining the substantive relationship between the seller and the buyer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da4102, Apr. 14, 1992). In light of the facts duly admitted by the court below and the above legal principles, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant shall be deemed to be still in the position of enjoying the operation control or the operation profit of the Oba in this case at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the court below's decision is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. It is not reasonable to conclude that the precedents of the party member in the lawsuit are different from this case.

On the third ground for appeal

In light of the facts and records acknowledged by the court below as to the occurrence of the accident in this case and related Acts and subordinate statutes, it is appropriate for the court below to evaluate the ratio of the non-party's negligence as 40%, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles

There is no reason for this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-대전지방법원 1994.3.25.선고 93나5527