In the case of a vehicle registered under the name of a facility lessee under Article 13-2 (1) of the former Equipment Rental Business Act, whether the ownership of the vehicle is externally owned by the facility leasing company (affirmative)

In full view of the respective provisions of Articles 13-2(1), 13-3(1), and 13-4 of the former Equipment Rental Business Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, Act No. 5374, Aug. 28, 1997), Articles 6 and 8(1) of the Automobile Management Act, and Article 18 of the Automobile Registration Decree, the ownership of a vehicle is reserved in the facility leasing company even in the case of a vehicle leasing, on the premise that the ownership of the vehicle is reserved in the facility leasing company in consideration of the characteristics of the facility leasing and the purpose of the purpose of the security to promote the facility leasing industry by leaving the facility leasing company left for a certain period of time and lending to the facility leasing company: Provided, That in the event of an accident, the obligation of various administrative matters concerning the maintenance and management of the vehicle and the liability for damages in the event of an accident shall be borne by the facility leasing user in the name of the facility leasing company, not the owner of the vehicle leasing company.

Articles 13-2 (1) (see current Article 33 (1) of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act), 13-3 (1) (see current Article 34 (1) of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act), 13-4 (see current Article 35 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act), 6 and 8 (1) of the Automobile Management Act, Article 18 of the Decree on Automobile Registration, Article 509 of the Civil Procedure Act

Han Han Lin Specialized Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cheong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Bongyang Industries Co., Ltd. (Attorney Hu Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 200Na4159 delivered on June 28, 2000

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

1. Facts as to the recognition of the court below

A. On August 25, 1995, the Commercial Lease Co., Ltd., a facility leasing company (hereinafter referred to as "commercial Lease") concluded a lease agreement with the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") to lease the instant vehicle to the non-party company after purchasing the instant vehicle from the non-party Hansung Automobile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company").

B. On August 25, 1995, the commercial lease and the non-party company agreed that the non-party company, the lessee of the facility, is the commercial lease even if the registered name of the non-party company is the non-party company, and the non-party company registered the vehicle in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations at its own responsibility and expense, and thoroughly performs administrative instructions, such as inspection by the competent authority, and that the vehicle can always function with the duty of due care of a good manager.

C. On August 31, 1995, the commercial lease registered the instant automobile with the name of the owner as the non-party company.

D. Meanwhile, the defendant received the decision of provisional seizure against the non-party company by Busan District Court 98Kahap4878 and executed provisional seizure against the non-party company of this case on May 19, 198 based on the original copy of the decision.

2. The judgment of the court below

Article 13-2(1) of the former Equipment Rental Business Act (repealed by the Act No. 1, Jan. 1, 1998 and Article 33(1) of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act) provides that where a facility leasing company leases its facilities, etc., notwithstanding the provisions of the Automobile Management Act, it may register in the name of the user of the leased facilities. In full view of the aforementioned provisions, Article 13-3(1) of the former Automobile Management Act and Articles 8(1), 11(1), and 12(1) of the former Automobile Management Act, the lower court determined that the specific provisions of the Automobile Management Act (applicable to the Plaintiff’s assertion) are not explicitly indicated in the name of the user of the vehicle under the name of the vehicle leasing business (Article 6 of the Automobile Management Act) and the above provisions allow the above registration method, not compulsory provisions, inasmuch as the vehicle leasing company is an internal owner of the vehicle under the name of the user of the vehicle under the name of the vehicle leasing business under the name of the Plaintiff’s ownership and its liability for damages.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

Article 13-2 (1) of the former Equipment Rental Business Act provides that "where a leasing company leases construction machinery or automobiles under its name (excluding a person who acquires ownership of a specific object in cases of deferred payment sale; hereinafter the same shall apply), it may register the leasing company under the name of a lessee (excluding a person who acquires ownership of a specific object; hereinafter the same shall apply), notwithstanding the Construction Machinery Management Act or the Automobile Management Act;" Article 13-3 (1) of the same Act provides that "where a lessee uses the facilities leasing, etc., he/she shall perform all duties concerning the maintenance and management of the goods, such as inspection imposed on the owner of a specific object in accordance with other Acts and subordinate statutes as a party concerned," while Article 13-4 of the same Act provides that "where a lessee causes damage to another person by intention or negligence in operating construction machinery or automobiles after obtaining facility leasing, etc. under this Act, the leasing company shall not be deemed a person who operates an automobile for his/her own interest in the application of Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Business Act, accompanied by the application form."

In full view of the aforementioned relevant legal provisions, the ownership of a specific object is premised on the reservation of ownership of a leased vehicle to a facility leasing company for the purpose of promoting the facility leasing industry by leaving the leased vehicle to a facility leasing company for a certain period of time, and the legislative intent of the former Equipment Rental Business Act that intends to promote the facility leasing industry. However, in cases of the facility leasing of a vehicle, various administrative duties relating to the maintenance and management of the vehicle and liability for damages at the time of the occurrence of an accident under the realistic and economic needs should be borne by the facility leasing company so that the vehicle can be registered in the name of the facility lessee who is not the owner of the facility leasing company, and thus, the ownership of the vehicle registered in the name of the facility leasing user under the above provision of Article 13-2 of the former Equipment Rental Business Act shall be deemed to exist in the leased company as well as in the name of the owner of the facility leasing company as well as in the above provision of Article 14(1) of the former Equipment Rental Business Act, so long as there is no risk of any damage to the facility leasing company or its property.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of Article 13-2 (1) of the former Equipment Rental Business Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)