Whether a purchaser is an insured person when a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract was concluded with a seller as the insured under an agreement with the seller while operating a motor vehicle after purchasing the motor vehicle and completing transfer registration.

If the buyer entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the seller as the insured under the agreement of the seller with the vehicle transfer registration without completing the transfer registration, the buyer is a person who uses or manages the vehicle with the consent of the registered insured in accordance with the terms and conditions of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract.

Article 726-2 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Korean Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na43278 delivered on February 25, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (the supplemental appellate brief is examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief after the expiration of its submission period).

The First Ground for Appeal

If the buyer entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the buyer as the insured under the agreement with the seller when he purchased the automobile and operated the automobile without completing the transfer registration, the buyer shall be a person who uses or manages the automobile with the consent of the registered insured under the terms and conditions of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract, i.e., the acceptance insured (the original 90Da708 delivered on December 11, 1990; 92Da24127 delivered on February 23, 1993).

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that Non-party 1 sold the automobile of this case to the deceased non-party 2 at the time of the end of November 1987, but the sales amount was paid in six months each month in 200,000, and the automobile of this case was delivered by the non-party 2. The above non-party 2 entered into the automobile comprehensive insurance contract of this case with the defendant on April 4, 1988 with the consent of the above non-party 1 while driving the automobile of this case and paid the insurance amount to the defendant through the above non-party 1. The above non-party 1 is in the status of the insured who received insurable benefits under the comprehensive automobile insurance contract of this case and the above non-party 2 constitutes the approved non-party 1.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the above non-party 2 constitutes a person who uses or manages an automobile with the consent of the registered insured as stipulated in the General Automobile Insurance Clause at the time of the original purchase, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the registered insured or the approved insured, such as the theory of the lawsuit. There

The Second Ground of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below held that the above non-party 2 is liable to pay the amount ordered by the above final judgment pursuant to the provisions of the automobile comprehensive insurance contract, and the defendant is just in the judgment of the court below on the premise that the plaintiffs, who are non-party 3 and their wife, filed a lawsuit claiming compensation against the above non-party 2 in the court of Seoul District Court for damages, and sentenced the above non-party 3 to 12,437,376 won, the plaintiff 1 to the above non-party 70,000 won, each of which is 200,000 won to the rest of the plaintiffs, and the damages compensation therefor, and the judgment became final and conclusive. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just in the judgment of the court below on the premise that the court below and the non-party 2 are liable for the payment of insurance money equivalent to the damages under the judgment

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.

Justices Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)