The matters to be deliberated by the court in order to determine whether the seller's control of operation or the loss of operational profit is lost in the event that the payment of the vehicle can not be immediately delivered even after the payment of the vehicle is made on the condition of installment transfer.

If a sales contract was entered into under the condition that the buyer pays for the vehicle and the seller can not immediately deliver the registration document for ownership transfer of the vehicle due to the sale and purchase of the vehicle, then the seller can not immediately deliver the registration document for ownership transfer of the vehicle due to the sale and purchase of the vehicle, it is necessary to examine the details of the agreement between the parties to deliver the registration document for transfer of the vehicle, the transaction circumstances of the vehicle, the delivery of the vehicle, and the insurance relationship of the vehicle operator, etc. in addition to the issuance of the vehicle inspection certificate, but the court below rejected the defense that the seller lost its control or operation interest on the ground that the seller did not deliver the registration document for the vehicle to the buyer without examining the aforementioned various circumstances. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Einyang et al.

Attorney Lee Tae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 90Na294 delivered on August 24, 1990

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on January 19, 1989, the court below confirmed the fact that the non-party Kim Jong-sik was caused the traffic accident in this case by the negligence of driving, such as the instructions, while driving the 5Ra 1925, Jeonnam-nam-nam-do, the defendant, the defendant, on January 17, 1989, selling the above wing-type vehicle to the above Kim Jong-sik-sik-sik-sik-sik-sik-sik in advance and receiving the full payment, and then, after issuing the car inspection certificate, automobile insurance document, and the automobile transfer certificate, the defendant did not bear liability for damages since the above Kim-sik-sik caused the above accident after the vehicle inspection certificate, automobile insurance document, and the automobile transfer certificate, even if he sold the vehicle and delivered the vehicle inspection certificate to the buyer, unless the seller delivers the documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of the ownership of the motor vehicle, so the defendant's defense was rejected.

According to the records, in selling the instant vehicle to the non-party Kim-sik, the above sales contract was concluded on the condition that the above non-party bears the vehicle installment in return for the payment of KRW 1,600,000 for the said vehicle. Thus, the above defendant was unable to promptly deliver the registration document on the transfer of ownership to the said vehicle for the reason of the above installment sale. In determining the defendant's right to control the operation of the said vehicle or the profit from the sale of the said vehicle, the court below should clarify how the parties agreed to deliver the documents on the transfer of the above vehicle. In addition to the payment or the delivery of the vehicle inspection certificate, the court below should examine the sale process of the said vehicle, the delivery of the vehicle, the vehicle delivery quantity, and the insurance relation of the vehicle, etc., other than the payment or the delivery of the vehicle inspection certificate, but it is considered that the defendant's operation control or the profit of the vehicle in this case can be determined properly (see each Decision 83Da975, Dec. 13, 1983; 234, Apr. 2384).

The court below rejected the defendant's defense on the ground that the seller did not deliver the registration documents of the vehicle of this case to the buyer without examining and determining the above various circumstances. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, it is reasonable to point out this issue.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)