The case holding that a motor vehicle is in operation control and operation profit in relation to a motor vehicle by saving a person to die and a motor vehicle and a person who is entrusted with a motor vehicle registration certificate;

The case holding that a motor vehicle has operational control and operational profit in relation to a motor vehicle by saving a person to die and a motor vehicle and a person who is entrusted with a motor vehicle registration certificate, has a traffic control and operation profit.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and eight others

Attorney Lee Jong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

International Fire Insurance Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na66669 delivered on July 9, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney

The court below rejected the defendant 1's allegation that the defendant 1 used the above automobile to the International Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. which was the defendant's intervenor around July 1990 when the defendant 1 purchased the automobile in this case as a discount and registered as its owner on July 4, 1989, and agreed to transfer the vehicle in this case to the defendant's name after the installment payment was completed. The defendant was paid the price and delivered all documents, such as a certificate of seal impression, etc. necessary for the transfer of the name along with the above automobile, and the defendant purchased and used the automobile in this case to the defendant 1,70,000,000 won. The court below decided that the defendant 1, who was well aware of the above automobile in neighboring area around November 15, 191 and sold the above automobile in this case, 1,400,000 won, and caused the above automobile to be 1,500,0000 won and sold the above automobile in this case to the defendant 1,014.

In light of the relationship with the evidence presented by the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Ultimately, the argument is nothing more than criticizeing the determination of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court,

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below held as above, in light of various circumstances such as the ordinary management and storage status of the instant vehicle, the situation of operation hours and distance, the relationship between the Defendant and the above Defendant 3 and the above Nonparty 1, the existence of the intention to return the said vehicle after the operation of Nonparty 1, the driver, and the possibility of the Defendant’s consent, etc., it is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant, who is confirmed to have a general and abstract driving control and operating profit as the actual owner of the said vehicle, has lost its operation control or operating profit in the said vehicle, and rather, he still has an indirect and potential driving control and operating profit. The court below held that the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unauthorized driving, and thus, it is not acceptable to accept the argument.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.