(a) The nature of the legal relationship requesting the exchange of an engine error of a vehicle, and the control over the vehicle in operation;

(b) A person responsible for an accident in which the employee of an engine error exchange business operator has driven a vehicle parked at a place less than 15 meters away from the place of business to the working stand;

A. The legal relationship requesting an engine error exchange service provider to exchange the engine error of a vehicle is a contract for the completion of the engine error exchange work. Thus, the control over the vehicle under the engine error exchange work is limited to the said engine error exchange service provider, barring special circumstances.

B. If the place where the driver of the truck parked in order to exchange the engine error of the above vehicle, but the place where the driver does not fall outside 15 meters from the place of the engine error exchange shopping mall, it can be seen as identical to the above place of business by social norms. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the act of the driver's employee of the engine error exchange business is part of the engine error exchange work.

A. Article 64(a) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da517 Decided October 26, 1976

Heading and four others

anti-monthly Transportation Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1556 delivered on January 14, 1987

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1, a driver of the 8A7154 metric truck owned by the defendant company, parked the above truck on August 5, 1985, at around 10:00, the non-party 1, a driver of the 8A7154 metric truck, which is the defendant company's company, and then parked the above truck on the road 15 meters away from the upper end of the 17:40-day terminal, which is the driver of the 15-day truck, and then, the non-party 1, an employee of the above 15-meter group, parked the key of the above truck on the 15-meter road stringer string, and it is necessary for the non-party 1, a driver of the 17:40-day engine truck to use the above truck on his behalf, and it is necessary for the non-party 1 to complete the above stringer's liability to use it on the right side of the above 17:40-day.

However, the legal relation requesting an engine error exchange business operator to exchange the engine error of a vehicle is a contract for the purpose of completing the engine error exchange work. Thus, the control of an engine error exchange business operator is limited to an engine error exchange business operator unless there are special circumstances. The act of an employee of the engine error exchange business operator who has requested the engine error exchange work parks the vehicle in his business place and then drives the vehicle in order to set the vehicle up to the working unit is part of the engine error exchange work. However, in this case, if the place where the driver of the defendant company parked the truck of this case, the place where the driver of the defendant company parkeds the truck of this case can be deemed to be the same as the place of the above Engine conference by social norms, and since the employee of the above Engine, Nonparty 1, an employee of the above Engine, had partially exchanged the engine to drive the above truck to the above working unit.

Thus, the accident of this case is an accident that occurred during the work of the Engine Round, which was requested to exchange the engine error, and cannot be said to be an accident caused by the operation for the defendant who is the client. However, the court below's decision is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the above law constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and therefore, it is reasonable to point

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)