2011Woo218914 Claims

Korea Commercial Insurance Co., Ltd.

1. A fire insurance company in the same unit;

2. A;

Since it is a minor, the legal representative B and C

3. B

4. C

2011, 12.14

January 4, 2012

1. The Defendants pay to each Plaintiff 61,167,40 won with 5% interest per annum from March 5, 2011 to July 7, 2011, and 20% interest per annum from July 8, 201 to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant A’s siren;

Around 20:30 on December 29, 2010, Defendant A, who was born in 1995, visited Nonparty A, one of the non-party corporations located in the Hasan-si (hereinafter referred to as "one-way development") to enter into a vehicle lease agreement with the head of the non-party E (1984) who was his employee, presented his driver's license and resident registration certificate, and deceiving Non-party D as if he had been aware that he had been a Dong, with regard to the FNFM other car volume (hereinafter referred to as the "accident") between D and D, and had him drive the instant accident vehicle by setting the term of lease from December 29, 2010 to 21:00 on December 30, 201, and the usage fee of KRW 80,000 on December 30, 201. Meanwhile, Defendant Dongbu Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Fire Co., Ltd.") was an insurer of the instant accident development vehicle.

(b) Traffic accident circumstances;

On December 30, 2010, when Defendant A driving the instant vehicle without a license and driving the front way of the Agricultural Technology Center located in Kim Jong-si at the seat of G Hospital on December 30, 2010, Defendant A operated the steering gear to the right side while leaving the road while driving in the middle of the mountain village, and caused a traffic accident which causes telegraph carriers installed at that place to fall on the right side and fall on the right side of the instant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant traffic accident”). Due to the instant traffic accident, a large number of casualties have occurred, such as Non-Party H(194) who was on the back side of the instant accident, died of “dual and cerebral cerebrovassis”.

(c) The defendant A's character;

Defendant A was living together with Defendant B and C, a parent of the State station, without a clear occupation (the head of the State station is deemed to have been a part of the State station) after he voluntarily set off the “Yamam High School at the time of the instant accident as 195, but was economically dependent on his parents, and was under the protection and supervision of Defendant B and C. Meanwhile, the Defendant A used the E driver’s license held at the time of the instant accident around November 6, 2010, which was the transfer of the instant traffic accident, for the illegal use of the E driver’s license and leased the car from Nonparty I’s car.

D. Payment of insurance money to the plaintiff

The Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the Nonparty J, the mother of the deceased H due to the instant traffic accident. After investigating the circumstances of the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 61,167,400, which applied 25% of the insurance money to the J on March 4, 201 (in relation to the fact that the children of J, the insured under the terms and conditions of insurance, are also the insured of non-life-free vehicles, there is no particular dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the children of J, the insured under the terms and conditions

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Gap evidence 25-1 and 25-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Grounds for liability for damages

1) As to Defendant A

According to the above facts, Defendant A is liable for damages as a tortfeasor who caused the instant traffic accident.

2) As to Defendant B and C

At the time of the instant accident, Defendant A had an intelligence to change his responsibility for his own act by remaining 15 years old at the time of the instant accident. As such, even if a minor is held liable for tort due to his ability, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor is liable for damages as a general tortfeasor.

In this case, as seen earlier, Defendant A was dependent mainly on the above Defendants in terms of living together with Defendant B and C, who is his parent, and in economic terms, and Defendant A was driving a vehicle on two occasions without a license, without any particular study or occupation. In such a case, the above Defendants were negligent in guiding and supervising the Defendant A, who is not 15 years of age at the time of the accident and has no driving function sufficient to operate the vehicle safely, by giving regular guidance and advice, etc., and thereby, caused the traffic accident. Thus, the above Defendants were liable as joint tortfeasor with Defendant A for damages.

3) As to the Defendant’s East Fire

In the agreement on the lease of a car by hand, the lessee must be a person who has a driver's license, the lessor shall maintain and deliver the car before the lease of the vehicle, the lessee shall comply with the contract period, and the lessee shall not be allowed to drive the vehicle to a third party. In particular, if the period of use is only one day, the rental business operator cannot deny that the lessee is performing the personal management of the lessee and the material management of the leased vehicle, and therefore the rental business operator and the lessee are in direct and present (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da3992, Apr. 12, 191).

As seen earlier, there is no dispute between the parties that the lease agreement for the instant accident vehicle between the Defendant A and the Plaintiff as to the instant accident vehicle constitutes a hand-on car rental agreement and the period of use is no longer than one day. In light of such circumstances and the aforementioned facts recognized as above, one of the following is deemed to have a driving control and operating profit for the instant accident vehicle, barring any special circumstances. Thus, the Defendant Dongbu Fire, the insurer which entered into an automobile insurance contract between the development and the Plaintiff, is liable to pay insurance proceeds.

As to this, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that Defendant A, who was 15 years of age, possessed Nonparty E’s driver’s license, resident registration certificate, etc., presented it, worn a man’s president’s emotional words, and closely examined whether the accident occurred in the course of carrying an adult horse, and entered into a vehicle lease agreement by deceiving the developer D as one of the following: (a) Defendant A’s employees; and (b) Defendant A did not neglect the lease agreement of the accident vehicle; and (c) Defendant A did not have a operational nature.

In light of the above circumstances asserted by the Defendant Eastern Fire, it cannot be readily concluded that the development did not have or lost the operation control and the operation profit of the instant vehicle from the first time, and such circumstance is only an internal issue concerning the validity of the lease agreement between the development and the Defendant A, and it does not mean that the development would not deny the operation of the instant vehicle (it is difficult to see that the Defendant A had an intention to exclude the operation control and the operation profit of the instant vehicle that was developed as one of the Defendant in light of the circumstances where the instant vehicle was concealed and returned voluntarily before the instant vehicle was returned). Therefore, the above argument by the Defendant Eastern Fire is without merit.

B. Scope of liability for damages

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 61,167,400, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from March 5, 2011 to July 7, 2011, which is the last delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

As to this, Defendant A, B, and C knew that the passenger of the instant accident vehicle, who was a driver, was aware of the Defendant A, and that Defendant A borrowed the instant accident vehicle in the name of another person, and thus, Defendant A ought to apply a comparative negligence of at least 25%. The entries in the evidence No. 15 alone are insufficient to acknowledge the Defendants’ assertion. According to the facts of recognition such as the developments leading up to the instant traffic accident, the percentage of comparative negligence set-off by H, who is the passenger of the instant accident, is appropriate. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Noh Sung-sung