Whether a taxi driver who has been assigned to another driver belonging to the same company in violation of a collective agreement, service regulations, etc. and was involved in an accident that he/she is seated next to the driver's seat constitutes "other person" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (affirmative)

Even if a driver of an accident vehicle has failed to properly observe the prohibition of driving rental or the number of hours of duty as stipulated in the collective agreement, employment rules, personnel management regulations, and service regulations of the automobile company, if he/she is a driver of an accident taxi of the same company and is a driver, and he/she was sitting in the seat next to the driver, he/she shall not be deemed a driver of the accident taxi, and therefore, he/she constitutes a "other person" as stipulated in Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Attorney Hawon-si, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na26401 delivered on December 22, 1988

The appeal application is dismissed.

1. The first ground for an application for permission shall be deemed to exist;

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the above non-party 1 operated a cab for business use (vehicle number omitted) owned by the defendant on October 23, 1987, and operated the cab without properly looking ahead of it on the front side of the front side of the west-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and caused the death of the above cab on the ground of two open-frames by the deceased non-party 2 (the plaintiff's mother, sibling's sibling) who was on the front side of the above cab's seat due to his shock, etc., and the above cab did not have any other reason to recognize that the above cab was exempted from liability for the above cab's operation on the ground that the above cab was not in violation of the regulations on the operation of the above cab's 14:00 on October 22, 1987 through the above 14:00 on the ground that the above cab was not in violation of the regulations on the operation of the above cab's 19000 times.

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the court below compared with the records, it is acceptable that the court below judged that there is no evidence that the operation of the above non-party 2 constitutes an illegal driving, and even if the above non-party 2 failed to properly observe the collective agreement, rules of employment, personnel management regulations, and service regulations of the defendant company, such non-party 1 is the driver of the defendant company's accident taxi and the above non-party 1 is the driver of the plaintiff company as a driver of the plaintiff company. When considering that the above non-party 2 is a driver of the plaintiff company, the above non-party 1 is a driver of the plaintiff company, and he was a driver of the above accident taxi, and he was a driver of the above non-party 2. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the above non-party 2 is a driver of the above accident taxi, and therefore it cannot be viewed that the above non-party 2 is a driver of the above accident's seat, and therefore there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act and the rules of evidence.

2. The second ground for an application for an appeal shall be considered the second ground;

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below set-off of the negligence by 20 percent on the ground that the above non-party 2 was negligent in failing to pay attention to the above non-party 1, since he was a person who was charged with the above accident taxi and was in charge of the operation and management team until he transferred it to the person who was charged with the above accident taxi, and as long as he was in the position as above, he was driving the above vehicle on behalf of the above non-party 1 during Han night, as long as he was in the position as above, and as long as he was in the position as above, he was in the position, he did not have to pay attention to the above non-party 1 for safe operation.

3. Ultimately, even if examining the grounds for the above application for a final appeal, it is deemed that the grounds for the above application include important matters regarding the interpretation of statutes that permit the final appeal, and thus, the application for a final appeal is dismissed, and it is so

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)