In the event that the seller of a motor vehicle delivers all documents necessary for the registration of transfer and the change of the name of the insurance relationship after paying the price in full and delivering the vehicle, but an accident takes place due to the buyer’s reason, whether the seller holds the control of operation or the profits from operation of the motor vehicle (negative) and the seller’s failure to take the procedure for change of the name

In the event that an accident occurred due to the buyer’s failure to seek the guarantor’s payment by the expiration date of the insurance contract, the seller goes off from the position of exercising the driver’s control over the vehicle or obtaining the operating profit, and the seller’s understanding that the above procedure for change of the name was omitted cannot be viewed as holding the driver’s control over the vehicle or the operating profit.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da2238 delivered on September 24, 1980 (Gong1980, 1321) 83Meu975 delivered on December 13, 1983 (Gong1984, 163) (Gong1985, 781) 91Da41873 delivered on April 14, 1992

Plaintiff 1 and seven plaintiffs' regular attorneys-at-law

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na3842 delivered on September 19, 1991

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant purchased the instant passenger vehicle in the name of the owner of the instant passenger vehicle under the name of the Defendant and consented to the use of the said vehicle under the name of the Defendant; (b) Nonparty 1 transferred the said passenger vehicle to Nonparty 2 on December 18, 198, including the insurance contract relationship on December 18, 198, and received KRW 1,000,000 for the same day down payment, and received KRW 1,000,000 from the Defendant on January 17, 1989; and (c) the Defendant issued the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of the name, such as a certificate of personal seal impression, to the Defendant; and (d) Nonparty 2 and his husband, intended to transfer the said vehicle under the name of Nonparty 3, his husband; and (c) the Defendant had no effect of using the said vehicle under the name of the surety until the expiration of the said insurance contract until the expiration of the said insurance contract.

2. However, in the sale of the above vehicle, the defendant paid a full payment of the purchase price from the above non-party 2 and delivered all documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of the name of the debtor on the registration ledger of the vehicle in this case, the change of the name of the insurance relationship on the purchase of the vehicle in this case, and the change of the name of the non-party 2 was possible. However, if the accident in this case occurred due to the buyer's failure to seek the guarantor for the payment, the procedure for the change of the name was suspended by the expiration date of the insurance contract, the defendant was exempted from the position of exercising a driving control over the vehicle or obtaining operational profits by delivering the above vehicle and documents necessary for the transfer of the registration and the change of the name as above. The defendant cannot be viewed as holding the driving control or the operational profits of the vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da2238 delivered on September 24, 1980).

Although the court below should have judged whether the defendant fulfilled his duty of cooperation as a seller on the registration of the transfer of the name of motor vehicle, the registration of the title of the installment contract and the procedure for the change of the name of the insurance relationship, etc., the court below should have judged whether the defendant's operation is recognized. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the liability of motor vehicle operators as prescribed by the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and incomplete deliberation, which affected the conclusion

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)