The legal relationship in which a local owner directly operates and manages a local government-invested vehicle;

In the legal relationship as to the rolling stock, the ownership of the rolling stock, as well as the right to manage the rolling stock, belongs to the rolling stock owner, and therefore, even if the rolling stock is directly operated and managed by the rolling stock owner, the rolling stock owner shall be deemed to have been entrusted by the rolling stock owner with the right to manage the rolling stock and acting as an agent for the activities that fall under the ordinary business management

Article 48 of the Commercial Act

Seoul High Court Decision 72Da2572 delivered on May 22, 1973 (Non-resident II Article 48(3)388 of the Commercial Act, 1047 house 21 ②14)

YOcheon Country

Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (85dan172 delivered on July 1, 200)

The part of the first instance judgment against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,474,800 won with 25 percent interest per annum from April 4, 1985 to the date of full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

Paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

In full view of Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3 (each product trading sign and content), Gap evidence 3-4, Eul evidence 2-1 to 2-1, and testimony of the first instance court co-defendants (except for the portion not trusted in the front and rear), the co-defendants of the first instance court shall not be held to the effect that they are mutually owned by the defendant who runs the automobile transportation business, (trade name omitted) 8.5 tons of Hyundai 8.5 tons of freight (vehicle No. 1 omitted) and (1) 4, (2) 1 to 3 to 4 to 5 to 1, 1984, and 1 to 4 to 5 to 4 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 1, 1984, and (2) to 1 to 9 to 10 to 5 to 5 to 1, 1984 to 1 to 4 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 1 to 5 to 1 to 5 to 1 to 5 to 6 to 1 to o to o to o to o to o to o to o to o to m.

Thus, in the legal relationship as to the motor vehicles originally used, the ownership of the motor vehicle, the right to operate the motor vehicle, as well as the right to manage the motor vehicle, shall belong to the motor vehicle operator who received the access. Therefore, even if the owner of the land directly operates and manages the motor vehicle, the owner of the land shall be deemed to act as an agent for the owner of the motor vehicle in the ordinary operations and management (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da2572 delivered on May 22, 1973). In this case, even if the co-defendant of the first instance court, who is the owner of the land, directly received the oil required for the motor vehicle from the plaintiff, he shall be deemed to act as an agent for the transportation business operator, who is the owner of the motor vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff and the co-defendant of the first instance court, who is the owner of the land, bear the above oil payment between the plaintiff and the defendant who is the transportation business operator, and the defendant shall not be liable for the above oil payment, barring any special circumstances such as the agreement.

The defendant, although most of the vehicles belonging to the above (trade name omitted), is related to the plaintiff, and the co-defendants of the first instance trial provided the plaintiff with a promissory note 5,00,000 won at par value issued in the name of the plaintiff as collateral, and was supplied with oil necessary for each of the above vehicles to the co-defendants of the first instance trial from April 6, 1984 to the extent of that amount. Meanwhile, the plaintiff continued to supply the oil necessary for each of the above vehicles to the co-defendants of the first instance trial from April 6, 1984, and did not demand the defendant to pay the oil price only once before the lawsuit was brought against the defendant. Further, in light of the operation and management of the vehicle, it is difficult for the freight truck operator to assume the responsibility of the above co-defendants of the first instance trial to believe that the above co-defendants of the first instance trial and the above co-defendants did not have any special duty to pay the oil price to the plaintiff as evidence. Thus, the plaintiff's co-defendant's allegation that the above co-defendant did not have any special duty to pay the oil price.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the compensation for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from April 4, 1985 to the date following the date on which the complaint of this case to be sought by the plaintiff was served to the defendant after the due date for the above oil payment of KRW 3,474,80, and the damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from April 4, 1985 to the date on which the complaint of this case was served to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking payment is justified. The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked differently from the party members and the conclusion is unfair, and the costs of lawsuit are

Judges Hah Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)