[1] The meaning of "other persons" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and in a case where one of multiple operators for the same motor vehicles is damaged by the accident of the relevant motor vehicle, whether it can be argued that the other operator is "other persons" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (negative with qualification)

[2] The case holding that a vehicle owner's wife cannot be viewed as "other persons" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act since he had a substantial control over operation and operational profit for the vehicle involved in the accident

[1] The term "other person" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act refers to "a person who operates an automobile for his own sake and a person other than the driver of the automobile in question." Thus, in principle, even if one of several operators who exist in the same automobile sustains damage from the accident in question, the operator of the automobile in question cannot assert that the other operator is another person under Article 3 of the same Act. However, it is only possible to assert that the other party could have easily prevented the occurrence of the accident because of the other party's leading or direct action compared to the operational control and operational profit of the operator in question.

[2] The case holding that a vehicle owner's wife cannot be viewed as "other persons" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act on the ground that the vehicle owner's divorce had a substantial operating control and operating profit

[1] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act / [2] Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da46613 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2668), Supreme Court Decision 97Da12884 delivered on August 29, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2861), Supreme Court Decision 99Da22328 delivered on September 17, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 2190), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da32840 delivered on October 6, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2293), Supreme Court Decision 200Da6393 delivered on November 30, 201 (Gong202, 1666)

Counterclaim Plaintiff and two others

Japanese Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeon Soo-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2002Na761 delivered on August 16, 2002

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the counter-resident.

The term "other person" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act refers to a person who operates an automobile for his own sake and a person other than the driver of the vehicle in question. Thus, in principle, even if one of the multiple operators who exist in the same automobile sustains damage from the accident in question, the operator of the automobile in question cannot assert that he is another person under Article 3 of the same Act. However, it is only possible to assert that he is another person only when it appears that the other party could have been able to prevent the occurrence of the accident because it was more led or directly and specifically, compared to the operational control and operational profit of the operator in question (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da32840 delivered on October 6, 200).

In full view of the employed evidence, the court below found that the non-party 1, who is the non-party 2, filed a divorce report on February 28, 200 with the owner of the vehicle of this case, but actually maintained marital life. When the non-party 2 was subject to hospital in Seoul on March 15, 200, the non-party 2 entered into an automobile insurance contract with the non-party 2 on behalf of the non-party 2 on March 24, 200, and then, on April 19, 200, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the "non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, his father, and the non-party 2, the non-party 1, his wife, who was his wife, for the above accident of which the non-party 2 had acquired the driver's license, on the ground that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, were operated on the same day.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)