The meaning of “person who takes over a motor vehicle” under Article 12(3) of the Automobile Management Act / Whether a creditor is delegated only to the person who is merely delivered a motor vehicle owned by an obligor as security without an agreement on the transfer of ownership or to dispose of the motor vehicle in lieu of satisfaction of claims (negative)

In full view of the contents and purport of Articles 6, 12(1) and (3), and 80 subparag. 2 of the Automobile Management Act, the term “person who has acquired an automobile” under Article 12(3) of the Automobile Management Act refers to a person who acquires the ownership of an automobile by means of a legal act, such as sale and purchase or donation. Therefore, even if a creditor has received an automobile in his/her possession to a debtor, if it is merely merely a delivery of the automobile as security of the claim without an agreement on the transfer of ownership, or if it is delegated only a power to dispose of the automobile as a substitute for the repayment of the claim, such creditor cannot be deemed as a “person who has acquired an automobile” under Article 12(3) of

Articles 6, 12(1) and (3), and 80 subparag. 2 of the Automobile Management Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2013No560 decided June 26, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant 1 guilty of fraud among the facts charged against Defendant 1 on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Article 6 of the Automobile Management Act provides that “The acquisition and loss of the ownership of a motor vehicle shall take effect upon registration,” and Article 12(1) of the same Act provides that “Any person who acquires the registered motor vehicle shall apply for the registration of the transfer of the ownership of a motor vehicle to the Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Presidential Decree,” and Article 12(3) of the same Act provides that “if a person who has acquired the motor vehicle intends to transfer it again to a third party, he/she shall make the registration of the transfer under his/her name before transferring it to a third party.” In addition, Article 80 Subparag. 2 of the Automobile Management Act provides that “the person who has again transferred it to a third party without the registration of transfer in his/her name in violation of

In full view of the contents and purport of the above provisions, the term “person who has acquired an automobile” under Article 12(3) of the Automobile Management Act refers to a person who acquires the ownership of an automobile by means of legal acts, including sale and purchase or donation. Therefore, even if the obligee received the automobile from the obligor, if it is merely merely a delivery of the automobile as security of the claim without an agreement on the transfer of ownership, or if the obligee is delegated only the authority to dispose of the automobile in lieu of satisfaction of the claim, such obligee cannot be said to be the “person who has acquired the automobile” under Article 12(3) of the

The lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting Defendant 2 of this part of the facts charged, and acquitted Defendant 2 on the charge of violating the Automobile Management Act, on the ground that it is deemed that Defendant 2 was aware of the fact that Defendant 2 lent the instant vehicle as security, but did not sufficiently prove that he had the intent to acquire ownership of the said vehicle.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the transferee of a motor vehicle as prescribed by Article 12(3)

Meanwhile, the prosecutor appealed against Defendant 2 in the judgment of the court below, but there is no statement in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief that there is no objection to the appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)