The user liability of the seller who delivered a motor vehicle before its name is registered.

If a motor vehicle seller delivers a vehicle to a friendly purchaser who does not register the change of the name, the seller is entitled to allow the buyer to operate the vehicle, and even if the operator does not have any de facto interest in the operation, the seller is responsible to direct and supervise the buyer as well as the actual operator.

Article 5 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da1061 delivered on December 23, 1975 (No. 11077; Supreme Court Decision 233Da152 delivered on September 29, 197; Supreme Court Decision 756Da142 delivered on April 25, 1967 (No. 530No. 8891 delivered on April 25, 1967); Supreme Court Decision 67Da142 delivered on April 25, 1967 (No. 15Da714 delivered on August 31, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 70Da1554 delivered on September 29, 1970 (No. 9135 delivered on September 135, 1918; Supreme Court Decision No. 1385 delivered on April 135, 198; Decision No. 1575, Sept. 37, 195)

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Defendant

Daegu District Court (73 Gohap 415 decided) in the first instance

Supreme Court Decision 75Da1061 Delivered on December 23, 1975

The part against the plaintiff concerning the claim under the following two paragraphs in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay 180,000 won to the plaintiff 1, 100,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 700,000 won to the plaintiff 3, and 20,000 won to the plaintiff 4,5, and 6 respectively, and the amount calculated by the rate of 5 percent per annum from July 8, 1973 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

The total cost of a lawsuit shall be three minutes and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiffs and the other by the defendant.

The above two paragraphs can be provisionally executed.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant paid 300,000 won to the plaintiff 1, 275,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 1,575,500 won to the plaintiff 3, 30,000 won to the plaintiff 4,5,6 respectively, and 30,000 won to each of them, and the amount calculated by the rate of 5 percent per annum from the day following the service to the date of full payment.

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

1. Liability for damages;

The mother of No. 1 (No. 2), No. 3 (Accident Report), No. 5 (No. 1), No. 3 (Report on Accident), No. 8 (Report on Non-Party 1), No. 4 (Notification of Indictment), No. 2 (Report on Non-Party 2), No. 4 (Evidence of Evidence No. 3), and No. 1 (Evidence of Evidence No. 4), which had been registered as the victim of the above-mentioned vehicle without any dispute. The defendant, despite the fact that Non-Party 2 had been operating the above-mentioned vehicle under the name of Non-Party 1, No. 9 (Life No. 2), had the victim of the above-mentioned vehicle under the name of Non-Party 1, No. 3 (Report on Accident), had the victim of the above-mentioned vehicle under the name of Non-Party 1, No. 9 (Report on Accident), and found the remainder of the vehicle under the name of Non-Party 2, No. 1, No. 1972, Nov. 14, 1972>

Therefore, the acquisition and loss of the ownership of a motor vehicle shall take effect when the registration is completed. Even if the defendant sold the above motor vehicle to Nonparty 4 and delivered it, the ownership of the said motor vehicle still exists to the defendant. Thus, the defendant, as the owner of the above motor vehicle, permitted the operation of the motor vehicle to Nonparty 4, and barring special circumstances, the defendant is responsible for directing and supervising the operation of the motor vehicle along with Nonparty 4, even though he did not have a de facto interest in its operation. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above negligence of Nonparty 2, which caused the driving of the above motor vehicle, as the defendant.

On the other hand, according to the above facts, when the plaintiff 1 and 2, who is the parent of the plaintiff 3, are crossing the roadway to the plaintiff 3, the victim, they should use the crosswalk, and take into account whether or not the vehicle is passing through by examining the left and right of the road, and although the plaintiff 3 neglected such supervisory duty, due to negligence that caused the plaintiff 3's failure to pass the road across the road, and went against the roadway without examining whether or not the vehicle is passing through the road, and the cause of the accident occurred as mentioned above, and the negligence of the plaintiff 1 and 2, who is the parent of the plaintiff 3, should be considered in determining the amount of compensation.

2. Property damage:

(a) Medical expenses, etc.

Considering the whole purport of the pleading in the statement of evidence No. 4-1 (Receipt), No. 2 (Receipt), No. 3 (L.), and No. 4 (L. 4) without dispute over the establishment of the case, the victim 3, the victim 15,00 won as an operating fee at the time of emergency f. c. s. 1,60 won as an operating fee at the time of emergency c. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. 1, 1972, the victim d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. k. k.

Therefore, the amount of the property damage suffered by the plaintiff 3, the victim, shall be KRW 665,050 in total, and the amount of the damage that the defendant should compensate is determined as KRW 500,000 in consideration of the negligence of the plaintiff as seen earlier.

(b)Nursing costs;

According to the testimony of non-party 5 of the court below and the result of plaintiff 1's personal examination of the court below, for about five months of the victim's hospitalization period, the plaintiff 1 and 2 suffered losses in the total amount of 75,000 won since the plaintiff 2 could not work for five months of the victim's hospitalization period, the plaintiff 1 and 2 had been engaged in the cultivation of special crops with the plaintiff 1 Eul, and the plaintiff 2 could have obtained net income of at least 20,000 won per month after deducting all expenses if the plaintiff 3 had been engaged in the cultivation of special crops during the hospitalization period of the plaintiff 3's hospitalization period. Thus, the plaintiff 2 suffered losses in the loss of profits because the plaintiff 2 could not work for five months of the plaintiff 3, the plaintiff 1's admission period for the plaintiff 3, and it cannot be accepted as evidence that the plaintiff 1 had been engaged in the above work in cooperation with the plaintiff 1's special crops.

Therefore, in order to nurse Plaintiff 3, the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs shall be KRW 100,00,000, and the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant shall be set at KRW 80,000, considering the negligence of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff.

3. Consolation money.

Since the plaintiff 3 sustained an injury due to the accident of this case, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that his parents and siblings suffered severe mental distress, the defendant is obligated to pay the above mental distress to the plaintiffs in cash. Thus, considering all circumstances such as the living standard, status, age, accident circumstance and result of this case, the victim's negligence, etc., as shown in the argument of this case, it is recognized that it is reasonable to determine the amount of KRW 200,000 to the plaintiff 3, KRW 100,000 to the plaintiff 1 and 2, and KRW 20,000 to the plaintiff 4,5, and 6 respectively.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 a 180,000 won, 100,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 700,000 won to the plaintiff 3, 20,000 won to the plaintiff 4, 5, and 6 respectively, and damages for delay at the rate of 5 percent per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 8, 1973 to the full payment date, which is obvious from the day after a copy is served to the defendant, to the day after the copy is served to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for this case is accepted within the above scope of recognition and its remainder is without merit. Since the defendant's appeal against this is justified, the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 384 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 99 of the Civil Execution Act shall apply the above provisional execution act to Article 98 of the same Act, and Article 99 of the same Act shall apply the above provisional execution act to the defendant's appeal.

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)