logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1981. 11. 10. 선고 81도653 판결
[도로운송차량법위반][공1982.1.15.(672),86]
Main Issues

Whether a person who disposes of a registered automobile to another person and delivers a certificate of transfer of ownership is an owner of a registered automobile under Articles 14 and 18 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act (negative)

Summary of Judgment

The defendant can not be regarded as the owner of the vehicle in substance in the performance of the obligations stipulated in the Regulation of Road Transport Vehicles Act by disposing of the vehicle owned by the defendant already in another person and transferring all the registration documents necessary for the transfer of the name to the buyer. As the "owner of the registered vehicle" under Articles 14(1) and 18(1) of the above Act, the application for the cancellation of registration or the registration number plate and seal of the vehicle concerned cannot be said to have a duty to remove and destroy them.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 14, 18, 86, and 87 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 81Do644 Delivered on September 22, 1981

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

original decision

Suwon District Court Decision 80No608 delivered on November 21, 1980

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is examined. As to the facts charged against the defendant, the defendant has already disposed of his own vehicle to another person and transferred all of the registration documents necessary for the transfer of his name to the buyer, and the defendant cannot be seen as the owner of the vehicle in substance in performing his duty. Thus, there is no other evidence as to whether the defendant has a duty to indicate the facts charged. Thus, the decision of not guilty on the ground that the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Articles 14(1) and 18(1) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, and thus, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow