교통사고 차량에 동승 중 사상당한 대리운전의뢰인의 공동운행자성에 관한 判例硏究 - 대법원 2009. 12. 24. 선고 2009다80170 판결 -

By the expansion of the market of driving agency businesses, the automobile accidents have increased continuously. So The Substitute automobile driving client suffers injuries by car accident caused under drunken Driving Agency. If the client(including car -owner) suffers injuries in car accidents by a designated driver, the designated driver and driving agency hold joint co-operator liability The problem is that if the Driving Agency is uninsured, where the Substitute automobile driving client is to be rewarded. At this time, the client must be compensated on his automobile insurance. The designated driver and the client have operator's liability for the damages, whereas the client becomes ‘another person’ under The Automobile Demage Compensation Law(ADCL) and shall be subject to protection. This case is that the court ruled the client sees to another person. This judgment is that the driving agency and the client(including car-owner) hold joint co-operator liability in the outside relations but only the driving agency has the driving liability in the inside relations. I think that the meaning of this judgment is that the client(including car-owner) cannot have the driving liability originally but the client has the driving liability under unavoidable circumstances to protect victims in the outside relations. This supreme court judgement inclined to admit the range of 'another person' broadly. So I oppose to the Final Judgement because confuses legal judgement about 'another person' and operator's liability of ADCL.