Legal status of a person who receives more than half of the purchase price of a motor vehicle and delivers the registration document for transfer of ownership.

Although the Defendant who sold an automobile to the Plaintiff received more than half of the purchase price as the down payment and delivered all the documents necessary for the transfer of the registration title, if the Plaintiff did not complete the procedure due to the Plaintiff’s circumstances, the Defendant cannot be deemed the owner of the said automobile, and it is reasonable to deem that the said automobile did not receive any profit with respect to the operation of the said automobile, and that the said automobile was in a position to direct and supervise the operation of the said automobile by a third party or to operate the automobile for himself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile

Article 756 of the Civil Code, Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da2238 delivered on September 24, 1980 (Bana Article 756(4)57 of the Civil Act, No. 644 delivered on February 28, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1532 delivered on February 28, 1984, (No. 32Nu100)

Plaintiff

Defendant

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,00,000 won with 25% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1, a driver of the above-mentioned truck (vehicle number omitted) is the defendant's employee on July 8, 1983 as well as the non-party 1's employee, and the non-party 1, a driver of the above-mentioned truck's vehicle's above 0:05 duty to maintain the non-party 1's right side of the road in Busan Metropolitan City, Seopo-dong Industrial Complex. The non-party 1's negligence on the road before Busan Metropolitan City, and suffered an injury on the non-party 16 weeks' right side of the above road. The defendant's assertion that the non-party 1's owner of the above vehicle or the non-party 1's user of the above-mentioned vehicle is not entitled to the non-party 1's compensation for all damages caused by the accident of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1's accident occurred on the non-party 1's own behalf and the non-party 1's testimony is not acknowledged.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the defendant is the owner of the above vehicle or the non-party 1's user is dismissed without any further need, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Choi Ki-su (Presiding Judge)