Cases where a motor vehicle seller is liable for operation under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

In a case where Party A purchased a vehicle as an installment and sold it to Party B after partially paying the installment, and then sold it to Party B at the time of completion of the payment, Party B shall transfer the remainder of the installment to Party B, and Party A shall subscribe to an automobile comprehensive insurance in the name of Party A, but if Party B shall delay the payment of the installment or not subscribe to the insurance in the name of Party A, Party A shall be deemed to have the responsibility to direct and supervise the employees of the vehicle, even if there is no de facto interest in the operation, and thus Party A shall be deemed to be a person who operates the automobile for itself as prescribed in Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da839 Decided July 11, 1978

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na4791 delivered on August 25, 1988

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the decision of the court below, the defendant purchased the accident vehicle of this case from the Hyundai Motor Company around August 1985 with 24 months' installments and sold the above vehicle to the non-party 1,00,000 won on July 26, 1986. The remaining 14 installments are paid by the non-party 1, but it is impossible to transfer the name until the installment is paid, so the above non-party 1 will transfer the vehicle to the above non-party 1's name at the time of the completion of the installment payment, and if the non-party 1 did not pay the above installment or purchase the above insurance with the defendant's name, the automobile comprehensive insurance will be subscribed as the defendant who is the owner of the vehicle, and if the above non-party 1 did not pay the above installment, the above sales contract was cancelled and the above 1 million won was delivered from the above non-party 1 to the non-party 1, and the defendant delivered the above vehicle to the non-party 1, who was the owner of the above vehicle under his own responsibility to maintain the above non-party 18.

In a case where the legal relationship pertaining to the automobile sales contract of this case with the above non-party 1 and the defendant is identical to the above recognition, the defendant shall be deemed to be responsible for controlling the above vehicle with the above non-party 1 even though there is no de facto interest in its operation, and for supervising the employees of the above vehicle. Thus, it shall be reasonable to regard the defendant as a person who operates the automobile for himself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Unlike this opinion, the judgment of the court below that the defendant does not constitute a person who operates an automobile for his own sake is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the arguments pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)