In the case of a pre-sale of a vehicle, whether a registered titleholder who is the original seller is a person operating the motor vehicle for his/her own sake

Even if it is registered as the owner in the register of automobiles, it is reasonable to view that the registered titleholder has left from the registered titleholder and transferred it to the purchaser or to the third purchaser even if the registered titleholder does not change if the third purchaser caused an accident while selling and delivering it to the third purchaser again, and the latter has sold and delivered it to the third purchaser. Therefore, it is not deemed that the registered titleholder is a person who operates a vehicle for himself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Meu975 Delivered on December 13, 1983

Dongyang Regular Cargo Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant Kim flood, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 82Na1099 delivered on June 24, 1983

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the owner of freight truck with 2.5 tons of this case (vehicle registration number omitted) is registered in the register of automobile on June 23, 1978. The defendant sold the above vehicle to Nonparty 1 (the ○○○○○○ in the judgment of the court below) who is an individual belonging to Hyundai Commercial Co., Ltd. operating the above vehicle on September 3, 1981, prior to the occurrence of the accident, at KRW 900,000, but the above Nonparty 1 was not the actual user of the vehicle, and it was impossible to register the transfer of ownership under the name of the above non-party 1 as well as the business income for the truck at that time. The above non-party 1 issued all documents required for the registration of transfer of the vehicle to the above non-party 1, but the above non-party 1 kept the above documents and agreed to register the transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 1 in the above order to sell the vehicle to the non-party 2, without the above documents being delivered to the non-party 1.

However, the term "person who operates an automobile for himself" in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act means a person who obtains profits from the operation with the right to operate the automobile in question (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu975, Dec. 13, 1983). Even if it is registered as an owner of the automobile register, if the other party sells the vehicle to the third party and the purchaser delivers the vehicle to the third party, and the third party purchaser has caused an accident, it is reasonable to view that the registered name is not changed to the purchaser or the third party purchaser, and the right to operate the vehicle is not yet transferred to the third party and the third party purchaser or the third party purchaser is not a person who operates the automobile for himself as stipulated in the above Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the defendant, who is the registered name of the vehicle in question, sold the above vehicle to the non-party 1 and received all necessary documents for the transfer of the vehicle in his name, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have violated the above legal principle as to the above vehicle's operation under the name of the first party.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)