[1] The owner of the automobile repair entrustment and the ownership of the right to control operation (the principle = repairer, the exception to the owner)

[2] The case holding that the owner of a motor vehicle and the owner of a repairer jointly controlled the operation and the profits of operation, in case where the repairer has operated the motor vehicle to check the dwelling room of the repairer at the request of the repairer and to check the completion of the repair

[1] In ordinary cases, entrusting the repair of a motor vehicle to a motor vehicle repair business operator all the works related to the repair of a motor vehicle. This includes driving activities within the scope necessary for the repair or trial operation. Since the owner of a motor vehicle requests the repair of a motor vehicle and delivers the motor vehicle to a repair business operator, he/she does not have the right to control the management of the motor vehicle until it is delivered again after the completion of the repair. Thus, the right to control the operation of the motor vehicle is limited to the repair business operator. However, if there are special circumstances to deem that the owner at the time of the accident that occurred while the motor vehicle was repaired or repaired, he

[2] The case holding that the owner of a motor vehicle and the owner of a repairer jointly controlled the operation of a motor vehicle and the profits of operation when the repair requester has operated the motor vehicle to identify and report the dwelling room at the request of the repair requester in order to confirm the completion of the repair

[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 96Da12887 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2354) decided April 11, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 1160)

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Dongyang Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2002Na2538 delivered on August 23, 2002

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. According to the evidence employed by the court below, the non-party 2 requested the non-party 2 to repair the cargo of this case, which is its owner around October 7, 200. The non-party 2 requested the non-party 1 to repair the cargo of this case, which is the cargo of this case. At around 12:00 on the same day, the non-party 2 requested the repair of the cargo of this case to the "Korea-Japan Center for the Management of the defendant who was in a close friendly relationship with the cargo of this case." The non-party 2 was in the office "Korea-Japan Center for the Repair of the Cargo of this case until the completion of the repair." The non-party 2 had the defendant paid the cargo of this case to the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who had been driving the cargo of this case from the 17:00 on the same day, and the defendant agreed to pay the cargo of this case to the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who had agreed to pay the cargo of this case to the non-party 9.

Then, the court below held that, upon receiving the freight of this case from the Defendant’s request for repair of the freight of this case, the Defendant transferred its operating profit and operating control to the Defendant from the luminous or solar interference to the Defendant, and the repair of the freight of this case was completed, and thus, at the time of the trial operation, the operation profit and operating control were still limited to the Defendant, and that the operation profit and operating control was not different from the operation control and operating profit at the time of the trial operation. Thus, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation based on the premise of the Plaintiff’s liability for the bereaved families in the ethical state of the ethical ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic e

2. In ordinary cases, entrusting the repair of a motor vehicle to a motor vehicle repair business operator for all the operations related to the repair of a motor vehicle. This includes driving activities within the scope necessary for the repair or trial operation. Since a motor vehicle owner requests the repair business operator to deliver a motor vehicle to the repair business operator, he/she does not have the right to control the management of the motor vehicle until it is delivered again after the completion of the repair. Thus, the right to control the operation of the motor vehicle is limited to the repair business operator. However, if there are special circumstances to deem that the owner at the time of the accident that occurred during the repair or the trial of the motor vehicle did not completely lose the operation control and the operational profit, it should be viewed differently (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da1287, Jun. 28, 1996; 98Da5645, Apr. 11, 200

However, according to the records, although the defendant, at the time of the accident, who was the repairer, was driving the freight of this case to confirm the completion of repair, the repairer, who was the owner of the truck of this case, was able to find out the room of his or her or her life in the above domains, and entered the accident site, which is the backway of the construction work, and caused the accident of this case (refer to the evidence No. 10-20 of this case and the statement No. 7 pleadings of the first instance court), it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff, at the time of the accident of this case, indirectly controlled the operation of the freight of this case through the collision, which is the owner of the truck of this case, and even has been able to enjoy the operation profit. Thus, it shall be deemed that the repairer, together with the defendant, had the operation control and the operation profit of the freight of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the reimbursement of this case, which is the insurer, solely on the ground as seen earlier, concluded that the owner’s control over the operation and the operational profit at the time of the accident. In so doing, it did not err by violating the rules of evidence and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the operation control and the change of operational profit in the automobile repair request, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)