The meaning of "title trust and the cancellation of an entrustment contract" under Article 3 (2) of the Addenda to the Trucking Transport Business Act.

Article 3 (2) of the Addenda to the Trucking Transport Business Act ( January 20, 2004)

Plaintiff

Ansan-si

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu28562 delivered on August 18, 2006

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 3 (1) of the Act provides that "any person who intends to operate freight trucking services shall obtain permission from the Minister of Construction and Transportation under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation," after converting the previous registration system from the previous registration system to the permission system." Paragraph (5) 1 of the same Article provides that the standards for supply notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation in consideration of freight transport demand by type of business under the provisions of paragraph (4) shall be met," while Article 3 (2) of the Addenda provides that "the standards for permission for entrustment contracts under the provisions of Article 3 (Special Provisions concerning Permission for Freight Trucking Services are not satisfied," among those who are entrusted with freight trucking services by a truck under title trust to the operator of freight trucking services at the time of the promulgation of this Act, the number of persons who intend to operate freight trucking services by making an application for permission under the provisions of Article 3 (5) 1 of the Addenda to the date of termination of title trust contract may apply for permission under the provisions of Article 3 (2) of the Act."

According to the records, while the plaintiff registered the title trust of his motor vehicle with the non-party corporation and operated the freight trucking services after being entrusted, on May 31, 2004, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party corporation on July 27, 2004 for the performance of the transfer of ownership registration procedure with respect to the above motor vehicle, which was rendered a favorable judgment from the above court on July 27, 2004, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 14, 2004, but the plaintiff paid the management fee for the freight trucking services to the non-party corporation until February 2005, and the transfer of ownership in the future of the plaintiff on the above motor vehicle should also be registered on July 31, 2006. Accordingly, the title trust and the entrustment contract relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party corporation did not substantially terminate until December 30, 204.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff can file an application for special permission under Article 3 (2) of the Addenda of the Act, and even if the plaintiff had already terminated the title trust and the entrustment contract on September 14, 2004, which is the date when the judgment became final and conclusive, the disposition of this case refusing to accept the plaintiff's application for special permission is illegal.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the part of the lower court’s determination that even before December 31, 2004, the pertinent title trust and the termination of an entrustment contract under Article 3(2) of the Addenda of the Act may apply for special permission under the said provision is erroneous. However, the lower court’s conclusion that the instant disposition is unlawful is justifiable. Therefore, the lower court’s error cannot be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the Defendant’s ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)