The court below held that, in this case, a claim for damages caused by an automobile accident, the automobile that caused this accident is registered as owned by the defendant in the register of automobile, but according to the evidence of this case, the defendant sold this automobile to Non-Party 10 in the same year before November 15, 1972 and delivered it to Non-Party 1, and it can be recognized that the above accident occurred while employing Non-Party 1 as an operator of the signal signal and operating the accident, the defendant is not liable for compensation due to this accident.

However, according to Article 5 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, the acquisition, loss, and transfer of the ownership of a motor vehicle as mentioned in this case shall take effect upon registration. Thus, even if the defendant sold and delivered this vehicle to the non-party to this case, the ownership of this motor vehicle still exists to the defendant, and according to Articles 4 and 85 of the same Act, the motor vehicle (excluding a small-sized motor vehicle with two wheels) shall not be operated without being registered on the register, and shall be punished if it is violated.

However, according to the testimony of the first instance court witness's testimony, the fact that the above fact that the non-party reexamination did not yet change the name of this vehicle is trusted by the defendant as a relative to the defendant, who is the seller. If the end is changed by the provisions of the above law, it can be deemed that the defendant would have sold the vehicle but would allow the defendant to deliver the vehicle and operate it under the name of the defendant before completing the registration of change due to the trust relationship between the buyer and the buyer, as the kind of relationship. If the defendant, as the owner of the vehicle, has allowed the above non-party reexamination as the owner of the vehicle, barring any special circumstances, the defendant is liable to direct and supervise the employees of the vehicle, even if there is no de facto interest in the operation, and as such, the defendant is not liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the negligence of the signal type that caused the vehicle driving.

shall not be effective.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which concluded that the defendant sold the automobile of this case without making a draft of the above legal principles is not responsible for it, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the user's liability, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal to this point is justified.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and it is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)