Any third party's unauthorized driving and liability of the borrower;

The defendant's parking of a motor vehicle for his own interest, knowing that the motor vehicle will be operated by the non-party 4, has a starting chain to him, and the non-party 4, while the non-party 1 discovered the starting chain of the motor vehicle while driving the motor vehicle as it is, has discovered it and got back to the starting chain in the first instance, he is liable for damages as prescribed in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Suwon District Court (79 Ghana615)

Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount equivalent to 1,885,00 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from June 25, 1979 to full payment, shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into three parts of the first and second instances, and one shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from June 25, 1979 to the full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution were sought.

The defendant shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court of first and second instances filed a judgment that all the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On June 24, 197: The defendant's vehicle that was operated by the non-party 1 at the time of the above operation of the 4-dong car without any dispute between the parties as to the accident that occurred due to the non-party 1's collision between the vehicle and the non-party 1 at the time of the above operation of the 4-dong car at the time of the above operation of the 4-dong car at the end of 15, and the accident that occurred due to the non-party 1's non-party 2's testimony without any dispute over the establishment of the 4-dong car, and the witness's testimony (excluding the non-party 2's testimony) and the fact that the above 7-dong car was operated by the non-party 1 at the time of the above operation of the 4-dong car at the time of the above operation of the 4-dong car without any change in its name by purchasing it from the non-party 3 on June 10, 1979 (the defendant 1).

2. Furthermore, according to the contents of Gap evidence No. 3 (written claim) which is acknowledged to be genuine by non-party 2's testimony as to the amount of damages caused by the plaintiff's accident in this case, and the witness's testimony (except for the portion not believed later) of the above witness, in order to treat the injury caused by the accident in this case, the plaintiff can be admitted as being hospitalized in the non-party 2's (trade name omitted), who is located in Seongbuk-dong, Sung-dong, Seoul, for the purpose of treating the injury caused by the accident in this case from June 24, 1979 to August 7 of the same year, and there is no counter-proof that the plaintiff paid 1,585,00 won for the medical treatment expenses. In addition, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering due to the accident in this case, and therefore, the defendant should pay 300 won for consolation money to the plaintiff, considering the circumstance of the accident in this case, degree of injury, and all other circumstances revealed in pleading.

3. The plaintiff asserts that in addition to the treatment costs of injury caused by the accident of this case recognized above, the plaintiff sought compensation for objection because it takes more than KRW 3,603,00 for the treatment of the above injury even after the closure of the above treatment. However, in light of the contents of evidence No. 4 (Written Estimate for after-the-counter treatment) and the part corresponding to the above assertion among Non-Party 2's testimony of the court below witness Non-Party 2, the plaintiff cannot be trusted and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently, and the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

4. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,885,00 (=1,585,000 + 300,000 +) and damages for delay in civil affairs with a rate of five percent per annum from June 25, 1979 following the day following the day on which the accident of this case occurred. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified to the extent recognized above, and the remaining claims are justified. Thus, the part against the defendant who ordered payment exceeding the above mentioned amount in the original judgment against the defendant is unfair. Since the defendant's appeal against this part is justified, the part against the defendant who lost the above defendant is revoked, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the Civil Procedure Act by applying Articles 96, 89, and 92.

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)