[1] In a case where a driver, who is an employee of a lessor, leases a while driving machine with a driver, can be held liable to the lessee for the damage of the engine due to the lessee’s breach of the duty of care in the internal relationship between the lessor and the lessee (negative in principle)

[2] The case holding that Eul company cannot be held liable for damage to Eul company's side, in case where Gap leased the heavy flag to Eul company, including Byung who was an operator of Eul company, but Byung did not observe the safety standard of the heavy flag, and Byung salved and damaged the heavy weight exceeding the permissible weight

[1] In a case where a driver, who is an employee of a lessor, rents a while driving machine with a driver, has the lessor drive it, the selection or operation of the weight of human nature during the mid-term period requires high-level professional skills. Thus, the lessee’s direction and supervision over the mid-term driver is limited to the lessor to the extent necessary for the use of the mid-term operator, and the lessee’s duty of care to prevent the choice of work methods related to the operation of the mid-term machine or any danger that may occur during the mid-term period may occur due to such choice is against the lessor who is responsible for the first, direct, and supervision of the driver who directly driven the mid-term machine while engaging in the business of leasing the mid-term machine, and the lessor is not liable for the damage of the mid-term operator due to the breach of the lessee’s duty of care in the internal relations between the lessor and the lessee.

[2] The case holding that in a case where Gap leased Eul to Eul corporation, the mid-term operator Byung, including a driver with expertise in driving during the mid-term rental business, and Byung did not observe the safety standards set out in the main part of the mid-term operator, and caused damage to Eul's loader with a low loader with a low loader with a low loader than permissible weight, Byung and Eul's internal side relation with the occurrence of an accident due to Byung's failure to comply with safety standards, the case holding that Eul and Eul are liable for failure to observe safety standards by failure to observe Gap's primary and direct direction and supervision, rather than the company "the operator who leased the mid-term operator, including a driver with expertise in driving while engaging in the mid-term rental business, who leased the mid-term operator with a high loader with expertise in driving," the above accident cannot be held liable for failure to observe Gap's first and direct direction and supervision of the mid-term operator with a high loader under Gap's direction and supervision, and due to failure to observe safety standards for boom selection and proper distance of boom.

[1] Articles 390, 615, 654, and 756 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 390, 615, 654, and 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Civil Development Corporation

Daegu District Court Decision 201Gahap5657 Decided December 14, 2012

October 16, 2013

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 377,410,00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of a judgment of the court of first instance, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff falling under the order to pay additional amounts under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 150,003,160 won with 5% interest per annum from June 17, 201 to December 14, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the mid-term season (type: AT190 tons, annual formula: 110 tons, annual formula: 196, and hereinafter “the instant mid-term season”) who leases the instant mid-term season, including a driver, to an elderly development company (hereinafter “high-term development”). The Defendant is a company that produces nuclear tin and standard aggregate in the construction site for the factory site of KRW 203 (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”) in the middle-term zone in the Gyeongbuk-gun, Northbuk-gun, would be a company that produces nuclear tin and standard aggregate.

B. On May 5, 201, the Plaintiff leased the instant flag to KRW 1,50,000 per day rent (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) including Nonparty 1, a driver, etc., who was an elderly operator, and Nonparty 1 was to engage in the work by using the Plaintiff’s mid-term equipment at the construction site at the construction site at the site of the instant construction site at approximately KRW 41 ton of the instant engine from the stringr of the instant construction site at the location of the stringr, which was set up at the location of the installation.

C. At around 17:50 on May 5, 201, Nonparty 1 driven the instant devices at the construction site of this case, dried up the said devices, and dried up the said devices to the location located adjacent to 180∑ 180∑ 4. At the same time, Nonparty 1 met the instant devices in order to move the devices to the location (it was planned to be installed above the instant devices at a height of about 5:6 meters). At the same time, Nonparty 1 met at the point where the instant devices were 110~150∑ 150· 150∑ 1. At the same time, Nonparty 1 met the accident at the point where the instant devices were installed at the point where the instant devices were dried up, which supported the instant devices, and at the same time, the accident occurred to the front side of the instant devices (hereinafter referred to as “the accident occurred.”).

D. At the time of the instant accident, the distance from the center of the flag of the instant flag to the point where the instant rocks are to be lowered (hereinafter “branch distance”) approximately 8.3m, the length of the boom boom boom 19.6m, and about 7.4m in the length of the boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom 36m. In such a case, the adequate weight according to the safety standards (85% in the maximum boom boom 200m) set out in the schedule of the instant flag was below 36 tons.

E. The Plaintiff was transported from Daegu on the day of the instant accident for the purpose of the production of aggregate at the instant construction site. At the request of elderly development, the Plaintiff requested the head of the division in charge of the “○○cicker” (the name of the deposit owner: Nonparty 2) who loaded the instant string engine in Daegu to “the instant string engine with the 100 tons of string engine” and sent the instant string engine with Nonparty 1 (driving engineer). At the time of the instant accident, Nonparty 3, the representative director of elderly development, was under the direction and supervision of the instant string engine and the installation of the instant stringr at the instant construction site.

F. Afterwards, Nonparty 1 was indicted for summary facts that caused the instant accident by negligence and was notified of a fine of KRW 1,00,000 in the case of injury caused by occupational negligence in Daegu District Court Branch Decision 201Da3706 on June 11, 2012, and around that time, the said summary order became final and conclusive. The summary of the crime is as follows.

In a case where Nonparty 1, a criminal fact in the main text, i.e., 41 ton of the instant tin flag using the instant tin flag, had a duty of care to comply with the design standards in order to prevent the transformation of steel materials, etc. constituting the structural part of the boom. Nonparty 1, at the time of the instant accident, was about 36 tons of the safety standards for the boom weight taking into account the distance of work and the length of the boom boom and the boom boom boom at the time of the instant accident, but 5 tones of the weight exceeding 5 to 6 meters. Nonparty 1 was able to take the boom of the instant tin flag at a level of about 5 to 6 meters, and was able to take the boom of the instant boom, and was able to take the part of the steel structure of the instant boom and boom the part of Nonparty 1’s 6th of the instant boom before the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9, 14 (including numbers without special reference; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and images, non-party 1's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

(1) The purpose of the lease of the term of this case under the initial lease agreement of this case was to simply cut off the term of this case at Leler, and Nonparty 1 completed his subordinate work. However, at the lessee’s side, Nonparty 1 demanded additional installation of the string at approximately 5-6 meters of the string of the strings, which was lowered by Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 1. Although Nonparty 1 expressed a difficult color on the strings of the strings, it was caused by the lessee’s failure to set up the strings and unreasonable installation work.

(2) Therefore, aged development, which leased and occupied Nonparty 1 while directing and supervising Nonparty 1, bears the Plaintiff’s responsibility for infringement of the Plaintiff’s ownership, ② the responsibility for failing to return leased items in its original condition, ③ the liability for damages due to the tort committed by Nonparty 1, and the Defendant, as a partner of old development, is also liable for damages.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed rent, KRW 274,916,410 (Agreement rent 1,500,000 + KRW 200,000 for the mid-term repair cost for the mid-term repair period + KRW 65,916,410 + KRW 65,916,410 for business losses during the mid-term repair period + an indemnity equivalent to the repair cost for the Defendant’s machines paid by the Plaintiff) and delay damages therefrom.

B. Defendant

The instant accident occurred not only when the instant medium-term aircraft initially salved or salved the instant medium-term aircraft and met about 90∑s, but also when the instant medium-term aircraft salved around approximately 180∑s, and the instant medium-term aircraft salved to approximately 180∑s. As such, the instant medium-term aircraft salved to the part of the bridge of the A medium-term aircraft salvine, the accident’s responsibility is already leased to the Plaintiff without properly repairing the instant medium-term aircraft salving to the part of the bridge of the Am

3. Determination

A. The issues of the instant case

According to the summary order that became final and conclusive in a criminal case related to the above facts, the accident of this case was caused by the wind that Non-party 1 did not observe the safety standards set out in the specifications of the flag of this case and caused the part of the left bridge of the part of the during the flag of this case where Non-party 1 did not check the load of this case. The ground for the plaintiff's claim for damages (such as violation of ownership, the obligation to return leased property, and the obligation of the user of tort) is premised on the elderly development or the defendant (which did not distinguish between old development and the defendant in determining the causes attributable to the accident of this case and the reason for the occurrence of the accident of this case. Thus, the key issue of this case is whether the reason for the occurrence of the accident of this case is attributable to the defendant who is the lessee of the mid-term of this case.

B. Relevant legal principles

(1) In a case where a vehicle is temporarily leased with a driver and used for transportation of cargo, barring any special circumstance, the user status of the owner of the vehicle is maintained in the aforementioned temporary lease condition, while the lessee also takes charge of transportation of cargo by directing and supervising the driver during the lease period, the user cannot be held liable for damages in relation to the victim even if the vehicle is temporarily borrowed. In this case, the scope of liability between the lessor and the lessee of the vehicle is determined by the degree of negligence that contributed to the occurrence of damages (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da39849, Mar. 31, 1992, etc.).

(2) In the lease agreement, the lessee is obligated to return the leased object to its original state. If the lessee is unable to perform such duty and the lessor suffers loss, then the lessee is liable to compensate for such loss unless it proves that there is no cause attributable to the lessor (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da51013, 51020, Jan. 13, 2006, etc.).

C. Whether there is a cause attributable to the defendant's side to the accident of this case

(1) Whether the defendant ordered unreasonable additional work

The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred, unlike the initial agreement that the defendant only agreed on the simple load work, even if there is a risk exceeding weight.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that some of Gap evidence Nos. 7-6 and 7, as shown in the above argument, are hard to believe it as it is due to the plaintiff's unilateral statement in light of Gap evidence Nos. 7-5 or the testimony of non-party No. 1 of the trial witness, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's above assertion is not acceptable without any further review (the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff's plaintiff's duty is fulfilled by completing the work of the agreed terms and the work is only likely to establish a contract under which the plaintiff deniess, and if the plaintiff's allegation that the tin of this case was set down at the ricker and did not come on the place of installation, it cannot achieve the purpose of the plaintiff's lease of the racker, even if the defendant's argument on this part is not accepted).

(2) Whether Nonparty 1’s fault was found in the Defendant’s failure to comply with safety standards

The Defendant leased the instant flag from the Plaintiff, including Nonparty 1, a driver, and Nonparty 3, a representative director of senior development at the time of the instant accident, was under the direction and supervision of the lower and installation of the instant crusher using the instant devices at the construction site of the instant construction site. This is as seen earlier.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the above quoted evidence and evidence No. 16-1 and No. 16-2, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant's responsibility for the charge of causing the instant accident by failing to comply with safety standards is not the defendant's "it is inevitable to exercise a limited direction and supervision right to driving engineers without any particular expertise in the mid-term system" but the plaintiff's primary and direct responsibility for direction and supervision, and it is difficult to find out any other circumstances that the instant accident caused the Defendant's fault. Thus, the defendant's assertion on this part is justified and the plaintiff's assertion is not acceptable.

① The Defendant’s active involvement or negligence in the process of selecting the 110 tons medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium indicated.

② During the period of this case, the term of this case was worn down in 1996 and was melted on the bridge part of the Awrithy, and the part of Ewrithy also had repairing experience, such as replacing the shocker with a ewropical pressure. The accident of this case also occurred at the point of approximately 110 to 150§¯, not at the time when the accident of this case first ewhyed about 90∑ with a ewropical ewhythy, but at the point of approximately 110 to 150∑ with a ewropical ewrhy, the part of the front bridge part of the left part of the Awrithyas and the reinforced steel structure fell. In light of these circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of undermining the part of the Awrithy, etc. of the Awrithy, in light of the ewropian weight of this case.

③ After the instant accident occurred, the Plaintiff directly paid KRW 7,500,000 on the part of the Defendant, and acted as if he was responsible for the occurrence of the accident in relation to the Defendant’s side.

④ At the time of the instant accident, the weight of 1.1 tons (point distance 45 meters, 32 meters in length of boom 32m) or the maximum 72.65 tons (12m in length of boom 12m) according to the safety standards listed in the relevant origin table was approximately 110 tons, and the weight of 36 tons or maximum 42 tons in length of boom 7.4m in length according to the safety standards was not 41 ton of the instant boom. Accordingly, it appears that Nonparty 1 selected the point and boom boom 10m in length at the time of the instant accident or maintained the adequate part of the instant boom boom 3m in length at the time of the instant accident.

(5) As in the instant case, in cases where a lessor, who is an employee of the lessor, rents and allows the lessor to drive the vehicle, the lessee’s choice or operation of the weight of 100s. Thus, the lessee’s direction and supervision of the mid-term driver requires only the lessor to the extent necessary for the use of the mid-term engineer, which is limited to the lessor’s liability to inform the operator accurately and comprehensively manage the site. However, the lessee cannot be deemed to be liable for specific working methods concerning the operation of the mid-term engineer, such as those of the mid-term engineer. 10, 200, 106, 200, 100, 200, 200, 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, when Nonparty 1, who is under the direction and supervision of the plaintiff, operated the engine of this case and operated the engine of this case, did not observe the safety standards for selecting the weight of the boom and selecting an appropriate point distance and selecting the length of boom (as seen in the above, there is possibility that the hidden defect in the bridge part of the boom might be concurrent), and there is no other reason attributable to the defendant in the occurrence of the accident. Thus, the defendant's defense claiming it is reasonable, and therefore, the part concerning the plaintiff's claim for damages, which is premised on the fact that the defendant's fault was attributable to the occurrence of the accident of this case, cannot be accepted without further review.

Furthermore, as to the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for rent, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff simply lowered the instant straw in Burler and fulfilled the lessor’s obligations under the instant lease agreement, and sought payment of rent of KRW 1,500,000 to the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff fulfilled the lessor’s obligations under the instant lease agreement. However, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff performed the lessor’s obligations under the instant lease agreement solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the instant accident attributable to the cause attributable to the Plaintiff, thereby failing to perform the lessor’s obligations. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim under the premise that the Plaintiff properly performed the lessor’s obligations under the instant lease agreement cannot be accepted without any need to further examine.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per

Judges Kang Tae-tae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-tae