(b) Where a motor vehicle is sold and delivered, and the remaining price is fully paid, but until the motor vehicle is resold, the name of the owner in the register of motor vehicles and the name of the debtor in the installment contract shall be retained, and the motor vehicle insurance shall also be controlled in the name of the seller;

B. Even if the seller sells and delivers an automobile and pays the remainder, if the buyer enters into a special agreement with the seller to retain the name of the owner on the register of automobiles as it is until the buyer resells the automobile to another person, and if the seller holds the name of the obligor under the installment contract for the automobile, and also allows the buyer to use the automobile without having the buyer subscribe to the name of the seller, the seller is allowed to resell the automobile and operate the automobile under the name of the seller until the completion of the registration of change in the name of the seller, and it is difficult to see that the buyer is exempted from the responsibility for the operation of the automobile, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the buyer is a person who operates

1. The judgment of the court below as to the point that the theory of lawsuit points out (the fact that the defendant sold the motor vehicle of this case) is just in light of the relation of evidence as stated in the judgment below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it is therefore without merit.

2. According to the decision of the court below, the non-party 1, who is the defendant's son, sold the automobile of this case on behalf of the defendant to the non-party 2, who is the motor vehicle dealer of this case on December 13, 1990, in gold 1,000,000 won, and apart from the above price, the above non-party 2 bears an installment for the automobile, and if the owner of the vehicle is left in the motor vehicle register, the above non-party 2 left the vehicle, without going through the above non-party 2, transferred the vehicle to the pre-user without going through the above non-party 2, and received the down payment and received the down payment at the same time, and according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the court below and the non-party 3's statement, the automobile insurance as of December 13, 1990, as of the sale date, it can be acknowledged that the comprehensive insurance of the above motor vehicle was purchased in the name of the defendant.

Since the operation control of a motor vehicle owner includes not only cases where a de facto control relationship exists between a holder and a driver, but also cases where a conceptual control relationship exists indirectly or indirectly through a third party's right. Thus, in cases where a motor vehicle is sold but also left the registered name, it shall be determined by social norms as to whether a seller has a seller's responsibility to interfere with or control and manage the motor vehicle operation by examining the actual relationship between a seller and a buyer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da4102, Apr. 14, 1992). In this case, even if the defendant sold the motor vehicle and delivered the motor vehicle, and the remaining price is fully paid, it is difficult to view that the seller's name in the motor vehicle register was owned by the defendant until the buyer resells the motor vehicle to the third party, but also the obligor's name in an installment contract on the motor vehicle as it is still owned by the defendant, and even if the motor vehicle insurance has already been used by the buyer without having the defendant subscribe to the motor vehicle insurance under the name of the defendant, the seller's obligation to resell the motor vehicle.

Unlike this opinion, the judgment of the court below that the defendant does not constitute a person who operates an automobile for his own sake is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and it is clear that this affected the conclusion of the judgment, which points this out

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)