The case holding that where the buyer of an insurance vehicle pays the purchase price in full and completes the transfer registration of ownership in his name, the buyer cannot be deemed to fall under the "person using or managing an automobile" with the approval of the named insured as stipulated in the General Automobile Insurance Clause.

The case denying a buyer’s claim for insurance money payment due to a traffic accident occurred during the operation of a vehicle on the ground that the buyer cannot be deemed to fall under “a person who uses or manages the vehicle with the consent of the life-sustaining insured” as stipulated in the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract in case where the seller is deemed to lose the operation control relationship with the vehicle and the insured interest as a result of the transfer of ownership registration in his name, as well as the buyer paid the purchase price in full

Articles 679 and 719 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Law Firm Han-dong Law Office, Attorney Jeon Soo-chul, Counsel for defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na45115 delivered on April 4, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in this case where the plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle from the non-party as the insured by the non-party, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, and caused a traffic accident and caused the victims to compensate for damage pursuant to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the court below held that even if the insured transfers the insured vehicle during the insurance period, the rights and obligations of the policyholder and the insured arising from the insurance contract shall not be succeeded to the assignee. However, in this case, even if the insured or transferee notifies the insurance company of his intention to transfer the rights and obligations under the insurance contract and obtain the approval, the above non-party transferred the instant vehicle to the plaintiff during the insurance period, and the plaintiff requested the defendant to approve the succession of rights and obligations arising from the transfer of the above vehicle after the occurrence of the accident, and the non-party can not succeed to the rights of the above non-party, and the plaintiff's owner or transferee of the above automobile after the completion of the insurance period cannot be viewed as the "the plaintiff's right to the plaintiff before the expiration of the insurance period" under Article 13.

2. In light of the purport of Article 42 of the above insurance clause of the defendant company, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff is not a person who succeeded to the right under the insurance contract of the above non-party who is the insured, and in light of the contents of Article 11 subparagraph 3 of the above provision, in case where the plaintiff, as the purchaser of the insurance vehicle, paid the purchase price in full and received the vehicle, and the non-party, who is the seller, is deemed to have lost the operation control relationship and insurable interest as a result of the registration of transfer of ownership in its name, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be "the person who uses or manages the vehicle with the consent of the life-long insured" as stipulated in Article 11 subparagraph 3 of the above provision, and the judgment below is just

The Supreme Court Decision 90Da7708 Decided December 11, 1990 cited as the main issue pertains to a case in which the insured cannot be seen as having completely left from the operation control relationship with the vehicle, and it is not appropriate to refer in this context.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)