자동차대여업자의 운행자성

Abstract

The contents related to the operator's responsibility under the Automobile Accident Compensation Security Law are virtually the same from the time it was enacted as Law No. 1314 on April 4, 1963. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court has no choice but to continue its attempts to embody abstract concepts as it extends the concept of existing operating profit and control to ideological concepts. Even if it is understood that it is in line with the legislative purpose of the Automobile Accident Compensation Security Law, it is questionable how long the Supreme Court's interpretation can keep pace with changes in society through technological development. In this judgment, it was questionable whether the vehicle rental company could recognize the driver's personality in the event of an accident due to the tenant's violation, even though the vehicle rental company had restrictions and exemption regulations on the operator of the vehicle as the content of the contract with the tenant. The Supreme Court judges the driver's management of car based on the concept of existing operating profit and operating control (two-way theory), but as the concept of existing operating profit and operating control is abstract, the conclusions of the lower court and the Supreme Court were different. In the end, if the abstract concept of existing operating profit and operation control leads to individual case judgments, there is a risk of reaching unreasonable conclusions in form, and there is a risk of differences in drawing conclusions according to the subjectivity of judges depending on individual cases. If so, it would be more purposeful to interpret the provisions of Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Security Law to judge the driver's personality based on the subjective sense of responsibility of the party based on an objectified third party.