In a case where a repair business operator entrusted with repair by the owner of a motor vehicle again entrusts another repair business operator with the repair and causes a traffic accident while other repair business operator has driven a motor vehicle and returned to his/her workplace, the case holding that the original repair business operator had the operational control and operational benefit of the said motor vehicle jointly with other repair business operator.

In a case where a repair business operator entrusted with repair by the owner of a motor vehicle again entrusts another repair business operator with repair, and another repair business operator returned to his/her workplace while driving a motor vehicle, and caused a traffic accident, the case holding that the original repairer was jointly engaged in controlling the operation of the motor vehicle and operating profit in light of all the circumstances, including the fact that he/she again requested repair without confirming the intention of the owner of the

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yellow-jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 2004Na4147 decided Oct. 29, 2004

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

1. Based on the adopted evidence, the court below rejected the judgment of the court below, based on the following facts: at around 11:40 on January 3, 1998, the non-party 1 requested repair of the automobile of this case to the defendant who is the repairer, and the defendant requested repair to the non-party 2 who is another repairer because it is difficult to directly repair the automobile of this case; the non-party 2 found the defendant and returned to his workplace after driving the automobile of this case after hearing an explanation as to the part to be repaired by the defendant; and at around 13:50 on the same day, the non-party 2 did not confirm the safety of the front apartment distance from the front apartment distance of the right to instigate the right to use the automobile of this case, without confirming the safety of the front apartment at the right to use the automobile of this case. The court below rejected the plaintiff's first instance on the premise that not only the owner of the automobile was requested to repair the automobile of this case, but also the repairer was fully responsible for controlling the operation of the automobile of this case and its profits.

2. However, according to the records, the defendant requested repair of the motor vehicle of this case by the above non-party 1 and again requested repair of the motor vehicle of this case to the non-party 3 who is another repairer without confirming the intention of the above non-party 1. Accordingly, the non-party 2 (the above non-party 3 partner) who arrived at the car center operated by the defendant directly from the defendant, and received explanation and instruction as to the part to be repaired. In ordinary cases where the car center requests repair from the other repairer, the car center operator shall pay only the remainder after deducting part of the referral cost from the repair cost he received. The repair cost of this case was directly received from the above non-party 1 (refer to the evidence No. 4 and the testimony of the non-party 2). Thus, the defendant at the time of the accident cannot be deemed to have lost the operation control of the motor vehicle of this case, and it shall be deemed to have been jointly with the non-party 2 manager of the motor vehicle of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement, which is the insurer, that concluded that the Defendant’s operation control and operation profit was entirely lost at the time of the instant accident. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence and misapprehending the legal doctrine on the operation control and the loss of operation profit in the automobile repair request, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the allegation contained in the grounds of appeal assigning

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

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)