Whether a transferee who acquired an insured vehicle and registered the transfer of the vehicle in his name constitutes a person using or managing an automobile with the consent of the registered insured under the general terms and conditions of the automobile insurance (negative)

If a person who uses or manages a motor vehicle with the consent of the registered insured under the General Terms and Conditions for the Business Motor Vehicle Insurance provides the insured as the insured, the registered insured refers to the insured who enjoys the operation control or the operational benefits of the insured motor vehicle. If the transferee was involved in the accident while the transferee was driving the motor vehicle under the name of the transferee after the acquisition of the insured motor vehicle and the registration for the relocation of the motor vehicle was completed, the registered insured person has already lost the right to operate or control the motor vehicle by transferring the ownership of the motor vehicle to the transferee, so the transferee cannot be regarded as a person who is using or managing the motor vehicle with the consent

Articles 679 and 719 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da14796 delivered on July 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 2250) 91Da1158 delivered on August 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2314) 91Da4803 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong192,1545)

[Defendant-Appellant] Hansan Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na7164 delivered on June 11, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

If a person who is in charge of the use or management of an automobile with the consent of the registered insured under the General Terms and Conditions for Business Motor Vehicle Insurance provides as the insured, the registered insured refers to the insured who enjoys the operation control or the operation profit of the insured motor vehicle. If the transferee was employed by the transferee after the transferee's transfer of the insured motor vehicle in the name of the transferee after the transfer of the insured motor vehicle, the registered insured person has already lost the operation interest or the operation control right of the motor vehicle by transferring the ownership of the vehicle to the transferee, so the transferee cannot be regarded as a person who is in charge of the use or management of the motor vehicle with the consent of the registered insured under the above Terms and Conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da14796, Jul. 26, 1991; 91Da1158, Aug. 9, 199; 91Da4803, Apr. 10, 1992). Such interpretation is not clear that the insured person is an insured person who is an insured person who is not an insured person who is in charge of the remaining one.

In the same purport, the court below's decision that the plaintiff, who acquired an insured automobile from the non-party 1, the registered insured, and completed the transfer registration for ownership, does not constitute a person who uses or manages the insured automobile with the consent of the registered insured. There is no error of law in the interpretation of the above terms and conditions in violation of Article 5 (1) and (2) of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason

(2) On the second ground for appeal

In light of the fact that the insured's certificate No. 13, which is the cause of the certificate of comprehensive automobile insurance, is written as the plaintiff, but this part is written on the part of the plaintiff, and that both the policyholder and the insured are the non-party 1 individual, the witness's testimony is difficult to believe in light of the fact that the plaintiff's employee, who is the auditor, asked the plaintiff's employee to the employee of the defendant's business office for the insurance relationship following the change in the ownership of the insured vehicle of this case while he stated that he was aware of the identity of the plaintiff's employee, so the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff company concluded the above comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the non-party 1, even though he was aware of the fact that the above truck's employee had already been transferred to the plaintiff company, by explaining the contents and validity of the above comprehensive automobile insurance contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff company had concluded the above insurance contract with the above non-party 1, and there is no error in violation of the rules of experience and logic.

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.