[손해배상(자)][공1992.12.15.(934),3297]
If a person who purchased and delivered a vehicle requests a sale of the vehicle to a sales establishment without changing the registered name, the subject to whom the right to control the operation of the vehicle belongs if it is delivered to the sales establishment.
If a person who purchased a car from A and delivered the car requests the sale of a car to a sales establishment and delivers it, it shall be deemed that a car registration title remains for A, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, Gap's right to control the operation of a car for A. If a sales establishment operated for the purpose of arranging the sale of a car, it shall not be deemed that a car was operated for A.
Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and four others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-Appellee
Defendant
Busan High Court Decision 91Na1103 delivered on July 3, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that, based on its adopted evidence, the defendant sold the automobile of this case to Nonparty 1 for about one week prior to the date of the accident of this case and received the price in full on the day, and the transfer registration document delivered the said automobile to the Dong under the agreement that the above non-party 1 grants the above non-party 1 at the request of the above non-party 1, and the above non-party 1 requested the seller of the automobile of this case and delivered the above automobile to the above selling company before the above 2 and 3th day of the accident. In order to show the above automobile to the non-party 3 who is the managing director of the above selling company on the day of the accident, the non-party 2, who is the general manager of the above selling company, was on board the above automobile of this case and went to the residence of the above non-party 3. In light of the records, the court below's fact finding is justified, and there is no violation of the theory of facts in the process of fact finding.
As duly determined by the court below, if the above non-party 1, who purchased the pertinent car from the defendant and delivered it to the selling company, requested the sale of the said car, even if the registered name of the said car remains to the defendant, it shall be deemed that the defendant's right to control the operation of the said car has been left, unless there are special circumstances, and if the sales company's employee operates the said car for the purpose of arranging the sale of the said car, the above employee cannot be deemed to operate the said car for the defendant, and under the above circumstances, the defendant cannot be deemed to be in the position of the user of the sales company. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below to the same effect is just, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act or the user's liability,
All arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)