The application of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act to accidents caused by illegal driving in a park;

From six months before the accident of this case, the park was driving skills due to the help of the driver of this vehicle and the driver of this vehicle was driven, and the driver of other vehicle was also driving on the day of the accident, and the other park was trying to find the injured while working on the day of the accident without any loss, and returned to the hospital, but even though the time of returning home was delayed, the accident occurred while returning home to this vehicle and causing the accident, it cannot be deemed that the park was operated independently only for the above park that exclusively excluded the driver's control.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da254 delivered on March 23, 1971 (Supreme Court Decision 9584 delivered on July 12, 1977, Supreme Court Decision 19Nu252 delivered on July 19, 197, Supreme Court Decision 77Da91 delivered on July 12, 1977 (Supreme Court Decision 11526 delivered on July 1526, 168, Supreme Court Gazette 566 delivered on July 16, 198)

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Defendant

Seoul District Court Southern Branch Court (79 Ghana1355)

1. From July 7, 1979 to full payment, the part of the original judgment against the defendant ordering the plaintiff 1 to pay in excess of the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from July 7, 1979 to the date of full payment, and the plaintiff's claim on this part is dismissed.

2. All remaining appeals against the defendant and the plaintiff 1 and the remaining appeals against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff 1 and the defendant through the first and second trials. The five parts arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant are assessed against the above plaintiff 2, the remaining three shall be assessed against the defendant, and the remaining parts arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant shall be assessed against the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 5,142,100 won, the amount of 250,000 won, the amount of 150,000 won, and the amount of 5% per annum from July 7, 1979 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The judgment of both the first and second courts that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(Motor Number omitted) In full view of the record verification of the accused case against Non-Party 2 of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office, 79-type and 1854 of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office, and the record verification of the accused case against Non-Party 2 on July 6, 1979, Plaintiff 1 was the defendant that the motor vehicle for traffic business was owned by the defendant, and there is no dispute over the establishment of the motor vehicle Gap evidence Nos. 1 (No. 15) and Gap evidence No. 5 (the medical certificate) that can be established by Non-Party 1's testimony by Non-Party 1, the witness of the court below, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Thus, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is a person who operates a motor vehicle for his own sake, and has a duty to compensate the plaintiffs for property and mental damage caused by the accident.

Although Non-Party 3 was driven by the defendant, the defendant's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's testimony, the non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3'.

Thus, considering the status relationship between the non-party 2 and the defendant, the relationship between the ordinary accident vehicle and the non-party 2, the defendant's management status of the accident vehicle, the situation of the non-party 2's operation of the accident vehicle, its purpose, scope, etc., which can be identified in the above facts, it cannot be viewed that the operation of the accident vehicle in this case was an independent operation for only the non-party 2 who exclusively excluded the defendant's operation control, and therefore the above defendant'

2. Assessment of the material damages;

The reasons why a party member should explain are the same as that of the lower court (Article 2, 3, and 4 of the original judgment), and therefore, it is decided to accept it pursuant to Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the amount of damages should not be calculated again on the ground that there was no appeal by Plaintiff 1, even though it did not constitute an interim interest, since the peltoma inserted in the presidential withdrawal for the treatment of the instant accident and the re-operation expenses for the removal of metal lines have already been finalized at the time of tort, since they are claims that have already arrived at the due date.

3. Fruits offsetting, etc.;

Therefore, material damage suffered by Plaintiff 1 caused by this accident shall be 4,51,960 won (398,257 won + 102,774 won + treatment expense + 3,270,50 won + 387,096 won + nursing expense + 353,333 won in light of the results of the examination of criminal records and the results of on-site verification by the court below, since Nonparty 2, who did not have a driver's license, operated a motor vehicle at a speed of 45 meters per hour while driving the motor vehicle at night, it is reasonable to recognize that Plaintiff 1 was unable to cross the motor vehicle without permission, and it is reasonable to recognize that Plaintiff 1 was able to cross the commercial road at the point of this accident as well as to recognize the amount of damages incurred by the cross-road 4,0000 won, as long as it is not possible to cross the commercial road at the point of this accident without permission.

In addition, since the plaintiff 1 was the plaintiff who received 500,000 won as part of the compensation for damages after the accident occurred, the material damages against the above plaintiff shall be 2,50,000 won if the deduction is made.

4. Consolation money.

As seen earlier, Plaintiff 1 received hospital treatment for not less than three months after being suffering from serious injury, such as gradation and crushing, etc. due to the accident at issue. In the future, Plaintiff 1 received hospital treatment for not less than four weeks and received hospital treatment for the following four weeks. As such, it is recognized in light of the empirical rule that Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3, his parent, and Plaintiff 4 and Plaintiff 5, who is his leakage and accumulated students, were also suffering from mental harm. The Defendant is obligated to do so in money. If the following circumstances are comprehensively considered, the degree of negligence of both parties, the part and degree of injury, the social status, academic background, career, etc. of the Plaintiffs as indicated in the argument at issue, and the Plaintiffs’ social status, financial status, and total amount of KRW 300,00 and KRW 10,000 for each of the remaining Plaintiffs, the Defendant should pay consolation money to Plaintiff 1.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay in civil law at the rate of five percent per annum from July 7, 1979 to the full payment date as well as the remaining claims of the plaintiff 1 for damages for delay since there was a tort against the plaintiff 2,800,000 won and each of the above amounts for the remaining plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims for delay in civil law shall be justified only within the above limit of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed. Accordingly, the part of the original judgment ordering payment in excess of the above cited part against the plaintiff 1 is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is justified. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal against the above excessive part shall be dismissed, and all of the remaining appeals against the plaintiff and appeals against the other plaintiffs are dismissed, without merit. This decision shall be applied to the bearing of the total costs of lawsuit as prescribed in Articles 96, 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act, and each part of the original judgment which ordered payment in excess of the above cited part.

Judges Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)