logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.07.14 2015노4762
자동차손해배상보장법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant was found to have operated the vehicle as shown in the facts charged, as the owner of the instant vehicle in the process of operating with D and D

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, while holding CKaren LPG passenger cars, has not subscribed to mandatory insurance for a motor vehicle, shall not operate a motor vehicle on the road.

Nevertheless, on September 26, 2010, the Defendant operated the said car siren LPG car, which was not covered by mandatory insurance on the roads front of the Gicheon-dong Busan Metropolitan City Busan Metropolitan City Gidong (Seoul Metropolitan City).

The Defendant, including this, operated 34 times in total between around that time and around October 27, 2013, which had not been covered by mandatory insurance.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant was employed by D for a period of one year from April 2008 to driving the instant vehicle, and argued that the Defendant did not operate the instant vehicle on the date indicated in the facts charged. Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act provides that “the owner of an automobile” refers to the owner of an automobile or a person entitled to use an automobile, and “the person who operates an automobile on his/her own behalf”. Here, “the person who operates an automobile on his/her own behalf” refers to the person who is in the position of the responsible subject to responsibility for the benefit by generally and abstractly controlling the operation of an automobile (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da3918, May 10, 191). In other words, the Defendant was duly adopted and investigated by the evidence from the investigative agency to the court below.

arrow