Main Issues
Whether a company participating in a violation of the Road Act is punished by joint penal provisions (affirmative)
Summary of Judgment
According to a contract entered into between a trucking business operator holding a trucking transport business license and a trucking business operator who actually owns an automobile, each borrower shall register his/her automobile in the name of the trucking business operator and transfer it to the trucking business operator, and each borrower shall conduct business on his/her own management and account and pay for the trucking business operator fees, even if the owner of the automobile entered into a cargo transport contract in his/her name while directly operating and managing the automobile entered into a cargo transport contract in his/her name, the automobile is registered as the owner of the land. Since only the local company has a trucking transport business license, the land owner falls under the "agent, employee, or other employee" as provided in Article 86 of the Road Act, who is in the position of operating and managing the automobile by delegation by the contract with the local company that is the owner of the vehicle.
Defendant
Defendant corporation
Appellant
Defendant
Defense Counsel
Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for defendant
Judgment of the lower court
Busan District Court Decision 2002No3826, 4052 decided May 16, 2003
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to a contract entered into between a trucking business operator holding a trucking transport business license and a trucking business operator who actually owns an automobile, each borrower shall register his/her automobile in the name of the trucking business operator and transfer it to the trucking business operator, and each borrower shall conduct business on his/her own management and account and pay for the trucking business operator fees, even if the owner of the automobile entered into a cargo transport contract in his/her name while directly operating and managing the automobile entered into a cargo transport contract in his/her name, the automobile is registered as the owner of the land. Since only the local company has a trucking transport business license, the land owner falls under the "agent, employee, or other employee" as provided in Article 86 of the Road Act, who is in the position of operating and managing the automobile by delegation by the contract with the local company that is the owner of the vehicle.
Upon examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the driver is the owner in the register of automobiles of this case, and the driver's agent, employee, and other employees who are general freight truck of this case who belong to each of the vehicles of this case, and that the defendant is liable for criminal liability under Article 86 of the Road Act, which is a joint penal provisions. There is no error of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the validity of joint penal provisions, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. All of the grounds of appeal are not accepted.
Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1339 Decided June 15, 2001 cited in the ground of appeal by the defendant is that the construction machinery rental business is jointly operated between the representative and the members by reporting joint signature under Article 13(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Machinery Management Act. Although the construction machinery is registered in the name of its constituent members, the construction machinery leasing company is indicated in the name of its constituent members, and the management contract for the report of joint signature between the representative and the constituent members is merely a mere fact that the management contract for the report of joint signature between the representative and the constituent members is not appropriate to be invoked
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)