[손해배상청구사건][고집1972민(1),185]
the company's name and the company's name and the company's name
If the actual owner of a vehicle sells the vehicle without maintaining the registration in the name of the company, it does not constitute a tort, aside from the fact that the actual owner of the vehicle sells the right to control the operation and the right to use the profit, and even if the purchaser sells the vehicle again without paying the price in full, it does not constitute a tort.
Article 750 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
South Korea Creative Business Corporation
Seoul Central District Court (70 Ghana8901) in the first instance trial
The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation part shall be dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
The defendant shall pay 2,00,000 won to the plaintiff.
The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.
The same shall apply to the order.
On June 11, 1969, 1969, the Plaintiff purchased Coin or 4 taxi (vehicle number 1-2512, 1-2512, 1-2513, 1-2515, 1-2516) in the name of the Plaintiff from the Defendant Company, and on July 11, 1969, from the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff Company again purchased Coin or 1 taxi (vehicle number 1-2523, 1-2523, and 1-2516) in the name of the Plaintiff under the name of the Plaintiff, and the purchaser of the vehicle that was subsequently purchased in the name of the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 of the first instance trial, paid KRW 4,450,000 in full payment to the Defendant Company in the vehicle register, and the actual owner of the vehicle and the Defendant Company, who is a shipping agent, enter into the so-called branch entry contract, with respect to the fact that the Defendant Company actually owns the vehicle and obtains profits from public charges imposed on the Defendant Company.
Therefore, it is clear that the actual owner of a vehicle obtains the vehicle operating control and operating profit source while operating the vehicle as owned by the defendant company in the motor vehicle register, and the vehicle transfer sale is the sale of the vehicle with the registration maintained as owned by the defendant company.
In the instant case, the Plaintiff purchased 5 vehicles on June 11, 1979 and 1967.7.11, and thereafter, the Defendant Company 1 and the Defendant Company 2 did not have the right to purchase and sell the said vehicles at KRW 500,00,00 for each of the above 10 vehicles, and the Plaintiff did not have the right to purchase and sell the said vehicles at KRW 50,00,00 for each of the above 10 vehicles and KRW 50,000, which were registered as the Defendant Company 1. The Defendant Company 1 and the Defendant Company 2 did not have the right to purchase and sell the said vehicles at KRW 97,00,000, which were registered as the Defendant Company 1 and the Defendant Company 1 and the Defendant Company 1 did not have the right to purchase and sell the said vehicles at KRW 97,00,000, which were known to the effect that the Defendant Company 1 and the Defendant Company 2 did not have the right to purchase and sell the said vehicles.
Therefore, as long as it is evident that Defendant 1 had the right to control the operation of five vehicles registered as Defendant Company after purchase on November 21, 1969 and the right to operate profits, even if Defendant 1 sold it to another person on April 24, 1970, which was not paid in full to the Plaintiff, the first instance court did not hold that Defendant 1’s right to control the operation of vehicles and the right to operate profits cannot be deemed to constitute a tort, in addition to the fact that Defendant 1 was liable for the nonperformance of obligations or the duty to pay promissory notes under the sales contract to the Plaintiff. As such, even if Defendant 1’s joint tort was not established, it is not proven that Defendant Company had been aware that Defendant 1 was a conditional sale to Defendant 1 as Plaintiff’s assertion, even if Defendant 1 was aware of such conditional sale, it cannot be said that Defendant Company had the right to control the operation of vehicles and the right to manage and operate profits to the Plaintiff, and it cannot be said that Defendant 1 had no right to be held liable for tort against Defendant 15.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without merit, which is based on the defendant company's joint tort liability or the non-performance of obligation. Accordingly, the part against the defendant among the original judgment which differs in this conclusion shall be revoked, and the corresponding plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost both the first and second trials.
Judges Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Judge)