The case holding that the above taxi company had a duty to control the operation of the above taxi and a duty to operate the taxi in case where the accident occurred while having a driver of the above taxi to drive the taxi to his/her her friendly-gu.

If an accident occurred while a driver employed in a taxi company was driving the taxi in the same manner as that of the taxi company, he/she agreed to drive the said taxi to his/her relative while driving the taxi, he/she shall be deemed to have been in an objective and external interest in the relationship with the victim.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and nine others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-ho

Samsung Transportation Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 91Na1530 delivered on September 12, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As duly determined by the court below, in case where the accident of this case occurred while the above non-party 2 was driving the above taxi by the non-party 1, who was employed by the defendant company, driving a taxi owned by the defendant company, and driving the above taxi, he agreed to the non-party 2 of the court below to drive the above taxi, it shall be deemed that the defendant company had objective and external profit from the operation control and operation of the above taxi in relation to the victim of this case. Therefore, the court below held the defendant company liable for damages of this case against the defendant company, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out.

The assertion is nothing more than an error of the judgment of the court below in a different view.

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

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)