Where an unauthorized repairer is entrusted with the repair of a vehicle and an accident occurs while driving the vehicle for such repair, the ownership of the responsibility for operation shall accrue.

Even if the legal relationship that entrusts the repair of a motor vehicle to a repair business operator is deemed to be a contract relationship, if the repair business operator entrusts the repair to a person who has several maintenance techniques without obtaining the permission for the maintenance business, the operation control of the motor vehicle shall be against the owner of the motor vehicle who has requested the repair by intention, leaving the legal relationship of the entrustment of the repair business. Therefore, the person entrusted with the repair bears the responsibility of the owner of the motor vehicle for an accident

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da517 delivered on October 26, 1976 (Article 664(10), 487 Ka1346, 243 Ka138, 549 Gong9455 delivered on September 11, 1979 (Article 750(35), 620 Gong1220 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant 1 and one other

1. The Defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 the amount of KRW 7,162,747 and each of the plaintiffs 3 and 4 the amount of KRW 500,000 per annum from October 27, 1984 to January 31, 1985 and the amount of KRW 25 percent per annum from February 1, 1985 to full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into five parts, three of which shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendants respectively.

4. Provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (1).

The defendants pay to each of the plaintiffs 17,679,69 won with 16,814,669 won, 80,000 won with 16,814,669 won, 3, and 4 with 800,000 won with 5% per annum from the day following the service of the complaint of this case to the day of the sentence of this case, and 25% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

On August 27, 1984, at least 08:20, the deceased non-party 1 died of his house located at the front 83-dong of the defendant 2's father at the front 7h 3728, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the deceased non-party 1 died of his house, and the plaintiff 2 had no dispute over the establishment thereof No. 1, 2-1, 2, 5-5, 6, 8, 12, 13 (Protocol of Trial), 14 (Protocol of Statement), 15 (Investigation of Suspect), and 16 (Protocol of Accident Point). In light of the above, the defendant 1's duty of care to repair the plaintiff 2's house after being negligent in performing his duties of care to repair the plaintiff 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant corporation"), and the defendant 2 was not obliged to do so for the plaintiff 1 corporation to use the above 1's house after his own death.

Therefore, with respect to the accident of this case caused by the operation of the motor vehicle as the owner of the above carbon truck, the defendant 2 is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs in relation to the accident of this case caused by his negligence as a person who directly drives the above motor vehicle, and the above liability of the defendants in relation to each of the above liability of the defendants shall be deemed to be in a quasi-joint and several relationship. Therefore, the defendants are liable to compensate for

The Defendant Company asserted that the instant accident occurred when Defendant 2 performed a trial operation for repair during the storage of the said vehicle by entrustment of repair by Nonparty 2, the driver of the Defendant Company, and that the Defendant Company lost the operation control over the said vehicle at the time, and therefore, the Defendant Company did not have any liability to compensate for the instant damages due to lack of operational responsibility to the Defendant Company.

On August 26, 1984, the above non-party 2 entrusted the repair of the above vehicle to the defendant 2 who was not able to walk well on August 20, 1984, and the same defendant did not dispute the facts that caused the accident of this case while driving the vehicle at around 08:20 on August 27, 198, but the above non-party 2 did not know that the vehicle was able to repair the vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the above 6-6 (Protocol of Public Trial), 12 (Protocol of Public Opinion) 5 (Protocol of Public Opinion) and 18 (Protocol of Public Opinion) of No. 5 (Protocol of Public Opinion) without any dispute over the establishment of the above vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident.

Since the legal relationship requesting repair of a motor vehicle is a contract relationship for the purpose of completion of repair work, the motor vehicle repairer should be deemed to be in charge of at least operating and controlling the motor vehicle to the extent necessary for repair. Thus, the motor vehicle repairer shall be deemed to have the right to operate and controlling the motor vehicle. However, a person who intends to operate the maintenance business, such as the repair of a motor vehicle, shall obtain permission from the Minister of Construction and Transportation prescribed by the Road Transport in accordance with the Road Transport Vehicles Act. In this case, when considering the fact that the relevant construction place is located in a place that meets the specific standards, and strictly meets the relevant permission standards, such as the possession of a specific site and building, various devices, construction machinery, tools, etc., without obtaining permission, or a person who does not simply request repair or maintenance to the extent that the right to control the operation of the motor vehicle is returned to the repair business operator.

This is because, in case of the occurrence of danger during the repair is anticipated, the owner of the vehicle shall not, in principle, request such an unauthorized repairer to repair, and if it is inevitable to repair it without, it is expected that the vehicle will occur during the repair of the vehicle and the client for the repair has the duty of care to do his best to prevent the accident if he knows that the situation of the vehicle's repair will occur, so the vehicle's operation control is the owner of the vehicle who has requested the repair inevitably by leaving the legal relation of the repair entrustment.

In the instant case, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant Company, the owner of the said vehicle, is responsible for the operation of the said vehicle, as long as the risk of an accident is anticipated during the repair, as the said Defendant is a person repairing the vehicle without permission, even if the contract for the entrustment of the repair of the vehicle was established, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant Company, as the owner of the said vehicle, is responsible for the operation of the said vehicle, because it is not a repair operator at night, but a repair operator, and the said vehicle was parked in the open space, and the nearby house was cut, and thus, the Nonparty and the said Defendant was parked in the open space. Therefore, the Defendant Company’s defense is groundless.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2, the parents of the above non-party deceased, who were a person responsible for the care and custody of the deceased, cannot have access to a vehicle on the open market in light of the empirical rule, as seen earlier, although the above non-party 1 might not leave the above non-party deceased in advance to prevent any accident that may occur due to such a day and to promote the safety of community life, it can be acknowledged that the above non-party 1 caused the accident by neglecting the above non-party 1's negligence to go in the above open market and caused the accident. As such, the negligence on the part of the above plaintiffs became the cause of the above accident. Thus, as seen later, it is reasonable to determine the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendants, but its percentage shall be determined at 20 percent.

2. Scope of damages.

(A) The deceased non-party 1’s passive damage

In full view of the purport of the oral argument in each statement of evidence Nos. 2-1 (No. 2-1), evidence No. 3 (Simplified Life Table), evidence No. 7-1, and evidence No. 7-2 (Construction Price Mark and Contents), the deceased non-party 1 was a healthy male and female who had been employed in the first and second years in February 11, 1983 at the time of the accident of this case, and the average female life expectancy was 62.97, and the average female life expectancy was 62.97. The average wage for one day of adult male working in the general urban daily work around the end of March 1984 at the time of the accident of this case can be recognized as 6,00, and there is no other counter-proof evidence, while a person engaged in ordinary urban work may operate until the end of 25 days each month, in accordance with the rule of experience, it is apparent that the living cost of the deceased is 13/13 of the parties concerned.

According to the above facts, when the deceased non-party 1 becomes an adult due to the above accident and has reached the age of 23 years (after 258 months from the date of the accident in this case), from 396 to 55 years, he suffered losses from 100,00 won per month (6,000 x 25 x 2/3) deducting living expenses from the monthly income that can be earned every month from the income that can be earned for general urban work for 396 months from the time of the completion of 55 years of age, and such losses shall be deemed as losses from the monthly income. However, since the plaintiffs have sought full payment at once as of the time of the accident, it shall be deemed as 14,031,868 won [10,000 won x 1030,035 x 24,005 x 14,000 won below the above losses from the above losses, the plaintiffs shall be deemed as 100,1084,2971].

(B) The consolation money against the deceased non-party 1

Since the accident of this case is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the above deceased non-party 1 suffered from a fatal injury and suffered severe mental pain until the death of the deceased day as seen earlier, the defendants are liable to do so. Thus, the defendants should pay 1,500,000 won as consolation money to the above non-party deceased in consideration of all circumstances shown in the argument of this case, such as the age, status status, the circumstances and result of the accident of this case, etc.

(C) Inheritance relationship

The deceased non-party 1’s damage claim amounting to KRW 12,725,494 (property damage amounting to KRW 11,225,494 plus KRW 1,500,000) was jointly inherited by the plaintiff 1 and the same 2 in his status relationship as seen above due to the death of the deceased. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff 1 and the same 2 respectively inherited the amount of KRW 6,362,747 in accordance with the statutory inheritance ratio of the above plaintiffs.

(D) Funeral expenses

Plaintiff 1 demanded KRW 865,00 in Do as a funeral expenses, and claimed as funeral expenses, but without any evidence to acknowledge it. The Plaintiff 1 demanded KRW 865,00 in Do as a funeral, in order to hold the funeral of the deceased.

(E) The plaintiffs' consolation money

The above deceased non-party 1 died from the accident of this case, and it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiffs in the family relationship suffered considerable mental suffering as seen earlier. Thus, the defendants have a duty to avoid the plaintiffs' mental suffering. When considering the plaintiffs' age, family relationship, circumstances of the accident, and the result of the accident, etc., all circumstances revealed in the pleading of this case, the defendants should pay 80,000,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as consolation money, and 50,000,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as consolation money.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay to each of plaintiffs 1 and 2 7,162,747 won each (the inheritance share of KRW 6,362,747 + the inheritance share of KRW 800,000) and 5,00,000 won each of them to plaintiffs 3 and 4, as claimed by the plaintiffs after the date of the accident of this case, each of them is the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case, and as requested by the plaintiffs, from October 27, 1984 to January 31, 1985, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case, 5% per annum of the Civil Act, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the above recognition scope, and all of the remainder are dismissed, and the provisional execution order of Article 89, 92, 93, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to each of the above provisional execution Act.

Judges Kang Jin (Presiding Judge) Kim Hong-ro