Legal status of a person who delivers a registration document after receiving the full amount of the automobile purchase price;

If the Defendant, who purchased a bus owned by the non-party company, sells it again to a third party and delivers all necessary documents for the transfer of the registered name to a third party, but did not complete the procedure due to the circumstances of the third party, the Defendant cannot be deemed as the owner of the bus in form or in substance, and the Defendant does not receive any profit with regard to the operation of the bus, and it is reasonable to deem that the operation of the bus was separated from the Defendant’s control, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to be the “person who operates the vehicle for his own sake” under Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act.

Article 756 of the Civil Code, Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 78Na783 delivered on November 1, 1979

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the evidence of the city, the court below determined that the non-party 1 driven the above bus on January 20, 1978 (vehicle registration number omitted) and caused an accident as stated in its reasoning and that the bus was owned by the industrial company first on July 11, 1977, the above company sold it to the defendant for the price of KRW 1,00,000, and received the above bus in full. The defendant sold the above bus to the non-party 1 for the above 1,300,000 won and immediately delivered it to the defendant for the above non-party 1 to complete the balance of the above price of September 20 of the same year, and then, the non-party 1 was to operate the above bus for the non-party 2's employees, and thus, he again refused to transfer the above bus to the non-party 2 and then returned the above new document to the defendant by requesting the above non-party 1 to transfer the bus to the non-party 2's own employees.

However, if the facts are as above, the defendant is not a registered titleholder of the above bus, but the defendant sold and delivered the above bus to the above non-party 1, and received the price in full, and all the documents necessary for the transfer of the registered name were not completed due to the circumstances of the above non-party 1, but it is not due to the fact that the above non-party 1 did not cooperate with the defendant. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant does not formally or substantially receive any profit for the operation of the above bus, and the operation of the above bus is not subject to the defendant's control, unless there are special circumstances. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant is in a position to direct and supervise the operation of the above bus or "the person who operates the automobile for his own own purpose" as provided for in the Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on user liability under the Civil Act and the legal principles on the operator of an automobile for himself under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, which recognized the defendant's liability based on the facts established by the court below, and there is a reason to discuss this point.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court for a new trial and determination.

This decision is with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)