Whether a trucking transport business under one’s name may be run by using the registration number of the previous trucking transport business or the registration number plate of the previous trucking transport business (negative in principle), and whether the owner of the land or the owner of the land may decide whether to transfer the registration number of the motor vehicle according to the intention of the owner of the land or the owner of the land (negative)

The registration number of a truck for transport business is set on the premise that a permit for a trucking transport business has been granted. Therefore, in cases where a trucking transport business owner transfers ownership of a trucking transport business after cancelling a contract for a trucking transport business, the previous registration number number cannot be transferred and a new registration number shall not be assigned unless there are special circumstances such as transfer of ownership. Therefore, in cases where a trucking transport business owner intends to use the trucking transport business for his/her own transport business after acquiring a permit for an individual trucking transport business from the branch office, he/she shall obtain a new registration number of the trucking transport business after obtaining a permit for an individual trucking transport business or obtain a new registration number number of the trucking transport business after obtaining a permit for a separate trucking transport business from the branch office, and in cases where the ownership transfer registration has been made without obtaining a permit for an individual trucking transport business, the former registration number number of the trucking transport business based on a permit for a trucking transport business from the branch office can not be used using the previous registration number plate or the registration number plate attached to the individual.

Article 3(1) and (4) of the Trucking Transport Business Act; Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act; Articles 9 subparag. 3, 12(6), and 16 of the Automobile Management Act; Articles 21 and 24(1)1 and (3) of the Decree on the Registration of Motor Vehicles; Article 27(1)6 of the Rules on the Registration of Motor Vehicles

Supreme Court Decision 2011Da39793 Decided November 29, 2012

Plaintiff

Daeyang Transportation Co., Ltd. (Law Firm leap, Attorneys Yoon-ju et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012Na7049 decided November 30, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal by misapprehending the legal principles as to termination of an admission contract

In full view of the evidence duly admitted, the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle at its own expense on March 29, 2006, and transferred the ownership registration title of the instant vehicle to the Defendant on the same day, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant entrusted management contract with the Defendant to operate the instant vehicle upon being entrusted with the management right of the instant vehicle, but to pay various expenses, such as monthly admission fee, liability insurance premium, comprehensive insurance premium, etc. to the Defendant. ② The instant entrusted management contract set the management period of three years under the former part of Article 3 and Article 17(1) and (2) of the former part of the instant entrusted management contract, which requires both the original and the Defendant to unilaterally terminate the contract during which the period may be terminated, but the latter part of Article 3 sets the grounds for cancellation on the sole basis that the Defendant can unilaterally cancel the contract. ③ The Plaintiff concluded the instant entrusted management contract with the Defendant on March 29, 2006 without notifying the Defendant of the fact that the contract was terminated under the former entrusted management right of the instant vehicle under the name of the Defendant.

According to the above facts, the entrusted management contract for the instant vehicle shall be deemed to have been concluded without fixing a period after the expiration of the term of the entrusted management contract of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff, a local owner, may terminate it at any time (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da12572, Feb. 14, 2008).

Although the lower court’s reasoning is insufficient, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the termination of an admission contract, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

A. According to Article 3(1) and (4) of the Trucking Transport Business Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a person who intends to run a trucking transport business shall obtain permission from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. The type of trucking transport business subject to permission is a general trucking transport business that transports cargo by using more than a certain number of trucks, an individual trucking transport business that transports cargo by using one trucking vehicle, or a monthly trucking transport business that transports

Meanwhile, according to Article 9 Subparag. 3, Article 12(6), and Article 16 of the Automobile Management Act, the main text of Article 21, Article 24(1)1 and Article 24(3) of the Decree on Automobile Registration, and Article 27(1)6 of the Rules on Automobile Registration, an automobile registration number shall be classified into an automobile transport business according to the purpose of the automobile and an automobile transport business. In order to receive the registration number of the automobile for trucking transport business (hereinafter “transport business”), an automobile registration number shall submit documents proving a license, etc. for trucking transport business at the time of application for new registration of the automobile. However, if a person intends to be registered as a trucking transport business differently from the license, registration, authorization, or report of the trucking transport business under the Trucking Transport Business Act, such new registration shall be refused, and the same shall also apply to the registration of transfer. In addition, the registration authority shall assign a new registration number and collect the previous registration number, sealing, etc

In full view of the above provisions, the registration number of a truck for transport business is set on the premise that the permit for the transport business has been granted. Thus, in a case where the ownership transfer registration is to be made on a truck registered as a truck for transport business, the previous registration number cannot be made nor a new registration number is given, unless there are special circumstances such as taking over the truck itself. Therefore, in order to use the truck for transport business when the ownership of the truck is transferred from the affiliated company after the termination of the entry contract, the owner of the truck takes over the ownership of the truck from the affiliated company after the termination of the entry contract, the former registration number of the truck for transport business has been applied for the registration of a new truck for transport business by filing an application for registration of transfer of ownership transfer, or the new registration number of the truck for transport business has been assigned after obtaining the registration number of the truck for the reason that the use has been changed (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da39793, Nov. 29, 201).

In addition, the registration number of a motor vehicle is assigned by the Mayor/Do Governor to manage the motor vehicle in accordance with the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the registration number plate marked with the registration number is merely a mark attached and sealed to the motor vehicle, so the right to use the registration number plate shall not be deemed to exclusively belong to an individual, and there is no way to decide whether to transfer the registration number plate according to the intention of the land owner owner or the land owner company (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da39793, Nov. 29, 2012

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in this case where a branch entry contract was concluded after January 20, 2004, it is not appropriate for the court below to provide the following reasons: (a) Article 3(2) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 7711 of Dec. 7, 2005; hereinafter “former Trucking Transport Business Act”); (b) Article 9 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s Guidelines for the Handling of Business Permission for Entrusted Trucking Transport Business for Entrusted and Entrusted Trucking Transport Business (amended by the former Trucking Transport Business Act; hereinafter “former Trucking Transport Business Act”); and (c) Article 9 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s Guidelines for the Handling of Business Permission for Entrusted

However, considering the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the claim for the obligation to register the transfer of ownership as to the truck for transport business due to the termination of the land entry contract includes the right to permit the transport business of the land-based company in addition to the ownership of the automobile, or the purpose of the transfer of the registration number or the number plate of the previous transport business based on the premise thereof, and rejected the defendant's assertion that the claim for the obligation to register the transfer of ownership without the conditions such as return of the registration number of the automobile for transport business or the change of the purpose of use from the "business use" to the "private use" is unjustifiable is justified in its conclusion. Therefore, as alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of application of the obligation to return the registration number of the automobile for transport business

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)