Whether the accident caused during the repair of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle are responsible for the vehicle

If the owner of a vehicle entrusts the repair of a vehicle to a repair business operator, the vehicle management manager is deviating from the owner, so the owner cannot be held liable for any accident caused during the trial operation of the repair.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant

Seoul Civil History District Court (80 Gohap4939)

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 3,896,510, KRW 300,000, KRW 200,000 per annum to the plaintiff 2, and KRW 300,000 per annum to the plaintiff 3,00,000 per annum from the day following the service of the copy soar to the day of complete payment.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in the first and second trials and the declaration of provisional execution.

On August 4, 1980, the defendant undergoes an automobile repair plant (trade name omitted) owned by the defendant for the inspection and repair of breakdown, and as a result of the inspection of the above vehicle at the above repair plant, it is difficult for the parties to dispute between the parties that the non-party 2 suffered injury, such as pressure of 1st century and the left-hand skes, etc. in front of the above 160 U.S., Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Metropolitan City) in the course of the operation of the above vehicle as search on the surface of the vehicle at the front of 14:30 Es. 14:30, the non-party 2, who has been approved the maintenance of the above plant, accepted the vehicle due to the breakdown in the balke part of the balke part, and caused the damage to the plaintiff, such as the above lane and the left-hand skes.

The plaintiffs are not only the car of the defendant, but also the defendant transferred the trial height of the above vehicle to the above repair plant, and the non-party 2 was driving the above vehicle at the trial speed and caused the accident. Therefore, the non-party 2 is deemed to have been driving under the direction of the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant is responsible for compensating all damages suffered by the plaintiffs 1 and 1's wife, children, and the mother due to the accident under Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act.

If the owner of a motor vehicle entrusts the repair business of the motor vehicle to the repair business operator, the control of the operation of the motor vehicle is beyond the repair business operator, and the borrower who is the requester cannot intervene in the handling of the motor vehicle during the repair business period, so there is no right to manage and control the motor vehicle, and since the repair of the motor vehicle includes operation and trial operation necessary for the repair business, if the motor vehicle causes an accident during the trial operation, it is reasonable to deem that the owner of the motor vehicle is not responsible for it. Since it is natural that the owner of the motor vehicle takes over the trial speed to the repair business operator unless there is any special circumstance, it is difficult to see that the trial operation of the motor vehicle was in accordance with the detailed instruction of the borrower, and there is no other assertion that the motor vehicle is in operation of the motor vehicle for himself/herself.

Therefore, the defendant's claim for objection against the plaintiff, which was based on the premise that the defendant is a person who operates an automobile for his own own sake under Article 3 of the above Act, shall be dismissed in its entirety because it is clear that the defendant's claim for objection against the plaintiff is without any judgment on the remaining points, and therefore, it shall be dismissed in its entirety. As such, the judgment of the court below in its conclusion is just and without merit, and the appeal costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff

Judges Kim-young (Presiding Judge)