(a) In cases of leasing hand cars, the relation of operating control over automobiles by the rental business operator;

(b) The case holding that even if a lessee has driven a motor vehicle to a driver without a license who is a third person in violation of an agreement, the operation control relationship of the rental business operator with respect to the motor vehicle shall not be interrupted;

A. Under the car rental agreement of a car rental business entity, a lessee must be the owner of a car driver's license, and the lessor shall maintain and deliver the rent before the car rental business entity, and the lessee shall not use defective fuels during the period of use, and the lessee shall not use the defective fuels, but shall not transfer the vehicle, pledge or mortgage, and if the lessee cannot use the vehicle for transport or sub-transfer the vehicle, or make it impossible for a third party to drive the vehicle at a cost, it cannot be denied that the rental business entity is performing physical management of the vehicle for the purpose of the lease. Therefore, the rental business entity and the lessee have a direct and present control relationship between the rental business entity and the lessee for the purpose of lease.

B. In the case of the above “A”, even if the lessee violated the agreement that the driverless driver’s license holder, who is a third party, was unable to drive to a third party, due to the lessee’s loan for use to that person, the relationship of direct and present operation control by the rental business operator with respect to operating vehicles existing between the rental business operator who is a motor vehicle owner and the lessee cannot be deemed to be severed. However, it is reasonable to view that the rental business operator indirectly and potentially exercises control over the operation of a motor vehicle through a

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Sung-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Jeon Byung-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na44044 delivered on December 20, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

According to the original judgment on July 27, 1989: (a) around 24:00, the lower court determined that: (b) the non-party 1 borrowed a car from the same company, which was owned by the same company; (c) the non-party 2, who did not obtain a driver’s license for one day; (d) the owner transferred the car to the non-party 2, who did not use the car; and (e) the non-party 2, who did not use the car at the same time after the lapse of 30 minutes of the lease contract, the non-party 1 could not use the car at the same time as the non-party 1, who was in possession of the automobile; and (e) the non-party 2, who did not use the car at the same time as the non-party 1, who was in possession of the automobile; and (e) the non-party 1, who was in possession of the automobile, could not use the car at the right time of lease; and (e) the defendant could not use the car at the same time as the lessee's.

All arguments are without merit, and this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)