A private car referred to in Article 58 of the Automobile Transport Business Act is not offered for commercial transport.

If the representative director of a company operating slaughter business, who is the company's representative director, dismantles cattle and pigs requested to be slaughtered by meat business operators from the above company's slaughterhouse, delivers the paper meat to meat business operators by using freezing cars for his own use, and receives the loading and unloading expenses in accordance with an agreement in addition to the prescribed slaughter charges, and appropriates the cost of the above vehicle's maintenance, the cost of loading and unloading work's personnel expenses, etc., such act does not constitute the provision of private cars for commercial transport as stipulated in Article 58

Articles 58 and 72 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Do164 Delivered on December 24, 1985

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 87No108 delivered on November 27, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's act, as the representative director of the non-indicted corporation that operated slaughter business, dismantled cattle and pigs requested to be slaughtered from meat business operators in the above company slaughterhouse, and transported and delivered the paper meat to meat business operators using freezing cars for his own use in the above company's possession, and, in addition to the prescribed slaughter fees, was appropriated as the actual transportation cost, such as the maintenance cost of the above vehicle and the cost of loading and unloading work, and then, the above act of the defendant does not constitute the act of using cars for the purpose of transporting for compensation as stipulated in Article 58 of the Automobile Transport Business Act.

Examining relevant evidence in light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, if the facts are as above, the judgment of the court below that did not regard the defendant's act as the business act of private cars as stipulated in Article 58 (a) of the Automobile Transport Business Act is just (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do164 delivered on December 24, 1985).

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)