existence of liability of a company with respect to any conduct which falls under ordinary duties for the management of the operation of a vehicle conducted by a land owner;

A vehicle that entered a company shall externally belong to the company with the ownership or the right to manage the vehicle, and even in cases where a branch owner directly operates and manages the branch owner, it shall be deemed that the branch owner acts as an agent for the above transport business operator in relation to the operation and management of the branch owner upon delegation of the management right to the operation of the branch owner. If the branch owner purchases oil necessary for the operation and management of the branch owner, etc., and if the branch owner engaged in an act that falls under ordinary business affairs for the operation and management of the branch owner, such as purchase of oil necessary for the operation of the branch owner, he/she shall be deemed to act as the representative of the branch owner in the transaction of oil supply. In special circumstances where it is deemed that the branch owner did not intend to act as the representative of the branch owner, and that the other party to the transaction did not intend to engage in the transaction with the above transport business operator.

Article 48 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Da2572 delivered on May 22, 1973, 85Da351 delivered on October 8, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2677 delivered on May 26, 1987

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1570 delivered on March 17, 1987

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

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party purchased two truck of this case and registered as owner in the name of the defendant company on the motor vehicle register, and that the non-party, the non-party, who is the land owner, demanded the plaintiff to provide credit for oil required for the above land-supply vehicle, and the plaintiff supplied oil on credit at the amount equivalent to that stated in its reasoning. The non-party only paid 117,000 won monthly rent to the defendant company and operated the transportation business under his own responsibility and calculation by using it as the actual owner of the above land. According to the agreement with the above non-party, the plaintiff was not a direct oil supply company under the third party's guarantee before the transaction of this case, but the non-party, who was an employee of the above non-party, did not have an obligation to pay the plaintiff's oil supply company with the non-party on behalf of the non-party, as well as the non-party's own oil supply company without any agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant company and the non-party.

In light of the above, the so-called vehicle's ownership or operation management right belongs to the above company. Therefore, even if a branch owner directly operates and manages the branch owner's vehicle, the branch owner shall be deemed to act as an agent for the owner owner's business in the operation and management of the branch owner's vehicle with the delegation of the operation management right concerning the branch owner's vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da2677, May 26, 1987; 85Da351, Oct. 8, 1985). Thus, if the branch owner purchases oil necessary for the operation of the branch owner's vehicle, etc., and engages in an act pertaining to the ordinary management of the branch owner's vehicle, such vehicle's operation and management right belongs to the above company, and even if the branch owner directly operates and manages the branch owner's vehicle, the branch owner shall be deemed to act as an agent for the owner owner's agent, and the other party supplier shall not be deemed to be the owner's own transaction of the fuel.

However, according to the facts of the judgment below, the non-party paid a fixed amount of rent to the defendant, who is the branch owner of the vehicle of this case, as the owner of the land of this case, and the plaintiff was also aware that at the time of the transaction of this case, the non-party was the owner owner of the land of this case. According to the records, the plaintiff presented the registration certificate of the defendant company with the non-party demanded the transaction of this case and submitted the registration certificate to the non-party, claiming that the plaintiff trusted it and carried out the credit transaction of this case. If the non-party, who is the owner of the land of this case, requested the supply of oil on behalf of the defendant who is the branch owner of this case, and the plaintiff accepted it and the oil supply contract of this case was concluded, the above non-party requested the supply of oil on behalf of the non-party as the owner owner of the land of this case, and the plaintiff also had an intent to have the legal effect of such transaction reverted to the defendant (as at the time of original judgment, if the plaintiff and the non-party directly carried out the transaction with the plaintiff.)

The court below should have clarified the source of the above business registration certificate submitted by the plaintiff and the purport of the submission thereof.

The court below held that the oil supply contract of this case is not done on behalf of the non-party who is the land owner company, but only the non-party who is directly supplied with oil between the plaintiff and the non-party should bear the oil payment without examining the above facts, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the law of the special law on the promotion, etc. of litigation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the existence of the above special agreement or making an error of law.

Therefore, the judgment 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 on the bench.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)