A. The meaning of "the person who operates an automobile for his own sake" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the standard of determining whether the driver's control over the automobile of the owner and the loss of profits from the operation

(b) The case holding that in case where the taxi driver of a non-registered company has a responsibility as an operator of a taxi company for the death of the plaintiff due to a collision while he was driving a non-number of taxis from the company on a domestic ground in order to take care of the words of female living together.

C. The case holding that it is reasonable to reduce the amount of compensation in light of the principle of good faith and the principle of equity, since the victim is not merely a person who is not a person with the same interest in light of the purpose of operation and the relationship between the driver and the victim

A. Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act refers to a person who is in a position as a responsible subject to the control of the operation of an automobile and to enjoy the benefit therefrom. On the other hand, the owner or the holder of an automobile shall be presumed to be in an ordinary position. Thus, even if the specific operation causing an accident is not based on the owner's intent, the owner shall be held liable for the accident in question as an operator under the said Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the owner's control of operation and the profit from operation was completely lost. Determination of whether the owner's control of operation and the loss of profit from operation is possible regardless of the owner's intention shall be made by comprehensively assessing the various circumstances in accordance with social norms, such as the situation of ordinary vehicle management, the situation in which the vehicle can be operated, the relation between the owner and the driver, the existence of the driver's intention to return the vehicle, the possibility of approval of the owner after the unauthorized Operation, and the existence of the victim's subjective perception

B. The case holding that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been in a state of complete loss of operating control or operating profit at the time of the accident, on the ground that it was difficult for the plaintiff to know that the plaintiff was in a state of complete loss of operating control or operating profit in light of the fact that it was difficult for the plaintiff to know that the plaintiff was in the situation of ordinary vehicle management in the ordinary taxi of the taxi company, the situation of the delivery and operation of the accident taxi, and the fact that the plaintiff was a non-number of vehicles in the case where the plaintiff was driving a non-number of taxis from the company for the purpose of taking care of the words of the female living together.

C. In the case of the above "B", the case holding that it is reasonable to reduce the amount of compensation on the ground that it is deemed reasonable to impose liability on the taxi company with respect to the above traffic accident on the ground that the victim is not a person who is not a person who is merely a person who is not a member of the Dong, in light of the operation log for the victim, the relationship between the driver and the victim, etc.

(b)Article 3(c) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da3062 delivered on April 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 1145) 91Da3918 delivered on May 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 1605) (Gong1992, 185) 92Da6365 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1853). Supreme Court Decision 91Da22728 delivered on October 8, 1991 (Gong191, 2690), Supreme Court Decision 91Da4093 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 1842)

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and one other

Changwon-si Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 90Na1060 delivered on July 5, 1991

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the non-party 1's 0:0 on May 8, 1989 to 06:00 on the following day, which was operated by the non-party 1 on the non-party 3, his husband, and the non-party 1, who was his husband, were playing together with the non-party 2, on the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, and the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the defendant 2, the non-indicted 3, the defendant 2.

The term "person who operates an automobile for his own sake" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act refers to a person who is in a position as a responsible subject to the control of the operation of an automobile and to enjoy the benefit therefrom. On the other hand, the owner or the holder of an automobile shall be presumed to be in a normal position. Thus, even in a case where a specific operation causing an accident is not attributable to the owner's intention, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the owner's control of operation and the profit from operation was completely lost in its operation, the owner shall be held liable for the accident in question as an operator under the above law. Whether the driver's control and the loss of profit from operation is possible regardless of the owner's intention, the relation between the owner and the driver, the existence of the driver's intention to return the vehicle, the consent of the owner after the unauthorized Operation, and the victim's subjective perception of the unauthorized Operation, etc., shall be determined by comprehensively assessing the various circumstances in accordance with social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu56969, Apr. 169, 19887

In light of the examination of the evidence presented by the court below in comparison with the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error of law as to the theory of lawsuit, and the first point of appeal is without merit.

However, in light of the overall circumstances acknowledged by the records, such as the fact that the purpose of the vehicle operation of this case is entirely for Nonparty 3, the network Nonparty 1 who was operating on the surface of the water was carried out during the night, and the relationship between the network Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3, etc., it is reasonable that Nonparty 3 is not a person who is not a person who is a mere hose, and thus, it is reasonable to impose liability on the defendant company for the traffic accident of this case as a general traffic accident in light of the good faith and the principle of equity. Therefore, it is reasonable to reduce the amount of compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1090, Jan. 31, 1989; 90Da1461, Feb. 12, 1991). Accordingly, the court below's decision that did not take such measures is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of liability for the Dong-dong. Therefore, the appeal No. 2 pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)