(a) Whether the purchaser constitutes an insured person with the consent stipulated in the same insurance policy in cases where a comprehensive automobile insurance contract was concluded with the seller as the insured under an agreement with the seller while purchasing automobiles and operating automobiles without completing transfer registration (affirmative);

B. Whether a person who received an automobile from a buyer but did not obtain a direct consent to the use or management of a motor vehicle from a seller who is a registered insured constitutes an insured person with the consent under Paragraph (a) (negative)

A. According to the terms and conditions of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract, a person who uses or manages an automobile with the consent of the registered insured is included in the insured. If the buyer purchased the automobile and operated the automobile with the delivery of the automobile without completing the registration of transfer of ownership, and entered into the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the insured under the agreement with the seller, the buyer is a person who uses or manages the automobile with the consent of the registered insured under

B. The consent of the insured should be the direct consent of the insured, barring special circumstances. Thus, even if the buyer received the delivery and use of a motor vehicle from the buyer, if the buyer did not obtain the direct consent of the use or management of the motor vehicle from the seller who is the insured, it cannot be deemed as the insured as stipulated in the above terms and conditions.

Articles 679 and 726-2 of the Commercial Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da7708 delivered on December 11, 1990 (Gong1991, 461). Supreme Court Decision 88Meu26758 delivered on November 28, 1989 (Gong1990, 124) (Gong1990, 124) 92Da32111 delivered on January 19, 1993 (Gong193, 725)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Jong-Un et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na24808 delivered on May 6, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The judgment of the court below on the ground that it points out the theory of lawsuit (the non-party 1, the insurance purchaser of the defendant company, the non-party 3 who entered into the comprehensive automobile insurance contract of this case under the name of the non-party 2, the original owner of the motor vehicle of this case, or the plaintiff who paid the insurance premium after purchasing the motor vehicle of this case or paying the insurance premium. The non-party 3 or the plaintiff, even if entering into the insurance contract with the registered owner of the motor vehicle of this case, explain the insurance contract different contents from the terms and conditions that the plaintiff would be entitled to receive insurance benefits if the plaintiff was involved in the accident while operating the motor vehicle of this case, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the contents of the explanation were the contents of the above insurance contract of this contract. The above non-party 3 concluded the above insurance contract with the above non-party 2 as the insured under the agreement with the above non-party 2) is justified in light of

All arguments are not acceptable since they merely criticize the determination of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

According to the terms and conditions of the instant comprehensive automobile insurance contract, if a person who is using or managing an automobile is included in the insured with the consent of the registered insured, and operates the automobile with the delivery of the automobile without completing the registration of transfer of ownership, and under the agreement with the seller, the buyer constitutes a person who uses or manages the automobile with the consent of the registered insured as stipulated in the above terms and conditions, but in this case, the consent of the registered insured should be the direct consent from the registered insured unless there are special circumstances. However, even if the above non-party 2 purchased the instant automobile from the above non-party 3, even if the above non-party 3 was approved by the above non-party 3, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was directly consenting to the use or management of the said automobile, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be the registered insured. According to related evidence and records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence without proper deliberation as to the judgment below.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.