After selling a motor vehicle and receiving a part of the price, if the buyer lends the motor vehicle to a third party again to the third party and operates the motor vehicle by employing the driver, whether the seller is liable for damages (negative)

In order to sell an automobile, Gap issued the key, vehicle inspection certificate, and insurance relation document, etc. to Eul to Eul who is employed by the automobile dealer in order to sell the automobile, and Eul sold it to Byung on the day when it was delivered to Byung and received a full amount of the purchase price, and in case where Byung lent the above automobile to a third party and caused an accident during operation, Gap shall not be deemed to be the person who operates the automobile for himself as prescribed in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da97 delivered on March 27, 197 (Specially, Article 3(24) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 185-598) 78Da1667 delivered on December 13, 1978 (Specially, Article 3(54) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 3(54)1252-121)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant

Jinju Branch of the Msan District Court of the first instance (87Gahap233, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. Revocation of the part against the defendant in the original judgment;

2. Each of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocations are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay 7,800,000 won to the plaintiff 1 and 1,889,320 won to the plaintiff 2, and 500,000 won to the plaintiff 3 and 4 respectively and the amount calculated by the rate of 25 percent per annum from November 5, 1986 to the full payment day.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The same shall apply to the order.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 (No. 1), 3 (Medical Certificate), 7 (Medical Certificate), 13 (Report on Occurrence), 14 (Report on Actual Dust), 15 (Medical Examination), Gap evidence No. 16 (Protocol of Examination), Gap evidence No. 17 (Protocol of Examination of Suspects), Gap evidence No. 19 (Protocol of Indictment), and Gap evidence No. 20 (Protocol of Trial) which do not dispute each establishment, the non-party No. 1 was driving the Pool car No. 23:05 on Nov. 4, 1986 (vehicle No. 1 omitted), and there is no evidence that the non-party 1 did not suffer injury to the right side of the plaintiff's crosswalk, and the non-party 1 did not suffer injury to the plaintiff's right side, and there is no evidence that the non-party 1 was able to recognize the non-party 1's right side side of the plaintiff's crosswalk, and there is no evidence to recognize the non-party 1's right side side side of the plaintiff's.

The plaintiffs claim that the plaintiffs are responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by them due to their operation since the above owner of the above automobile is a person who operates the above automobile for himself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Since the defendant is not a person who operates the above automobile for himself as at the time of the accident in this case, he can see that the above automobile was registered as owned by the defendant in the above automobile register at the time of the accident in full view of the entry of No. 5 without dispute over its establishment and the testimony of Non-Party 2, the above automobile was registered as owned by the defendant in the above automobile register. However, on November 2, 1986, the defendant delivered the above automobile inspection certificate and insurance relation documents to the non-party 2 who is employed by the above company for the above automobile in order to sell the above automobile to the non-party 1, and the non-party 3 was not a person who purchased the above automobile in accordance with the above automobile's own automobile register and the non-party 4,000 won of the accident in order to sell it.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case should be dismissed as it is without any reason to view it, and since the part against the defendant in the original judgment against the defendant is unfair with different conclusions, this part of the plaintiffs' claim shall be revoked and dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)