(a) The relationship which reverts to the management control right over an automobile delivered to a repair business operator for repair during the repairing period;

(b) Whether a motor vehicle repair business entity is an unauthorized business entity using another person's hole, and whether the reason why the owner did not find a motor vehicle even after the repair is completed can be deemed as the negligence of the owner in proximate causal relation with the traffic accident caused by the motor vehicle (negative)

A. Generally, when the automobile is delivered to the repairer for the repair of the automobile, the automobile operation control during the repair period is not for the owner, unless there are special circumstances, but for the repairer.

B. A motor vehicle repair business entity is an unauthorized business entity using another person’s vacantter, and even if there are circumstances in which the owner did not find a motor vehicle after termination of its repair and after termination, it cannot be said that there is a proximate causal relation with the traffic accident caused by the said motor vehicle.

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

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 89Meu29136 delivered on April 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 1065). Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1585 delivered on June 14, 198 (Gong198, 022)

Plaintiff 1 and 1 others, Attorneys Park Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na156 delivered on May 1, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In general, when a vehicle is delivered to a repair business operator for the repair of a motor vehicle, the right to control the operation of the motor vehicle during the repair period is to be done by the repair business operator, not by the owner, unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu29136, Apr. 13, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1585, Jun. 14, 198). The repair business operator is an unauthorized business operator using the vacant land in South Korea, and the owner is not found to have any other reason for the reason that the repair is completed and the motor vehicle has not been found to have a reasonable causal relation with the traffic accident in this case. In addition, the foregoing reason cannot be said to be the negligence of the owner (the defendant)

In the same view, the decision of the court below that denied the defendant's liability for damages is correct, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as pointed out.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)