logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1985. 12. 24. 선고 85도164 판결
[자동차운수사업법위반][집33(3)형,722;공1986.2.15.(770),358]
Main Issues

Whether it constitutes a commercial transport under Article 58 of the Automobile Transport Business Act to receive the transportation cost of goods by a private vehicle in the cost of goods (negative)

Summary of Judgment

Where a person who manufactures and sells goods transports the goods to consumers' stores by using a private truck at the consumer's request, and receives actual transport expenses such as oil expenses, vehicle maintenance expenses, personnel expenses, etc., such expenses shall not constitute the provision for commercial transport of private cars as stipulated in Article 58 of the Automobile Transport Business Act for compensation.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 58 of the Automobile Transport Business Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 83Do1788 Delivered on September 13, 1983

Escopics

Defendant 1 and one other

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu District Court Decision 84No696 delivered on October 25, 1984

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that Defendant 2 was included in the product cost, such as oil bags, vehicle maintenance expenses, personnel expenses, etc., in case where Defendant 1, who is an employee driver, transports the product to consumers' stores at the request of the above factory operator or consumers, with the punishment of Defendant 2, who is engaged in the manufacture and sale of the burners factory while operating the Samsung F&S factory, and transfers the product to the factory.

Examining the relevant evidence, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit, and if the facts are so true, the defendants' act does not constitute the act of providing private cars as stipulated in Article 58 of the Automobile Transport Business Act for commercial transport, and therefore the judgment below is just, and there is no violation of the legal principles such as theory of lawsuit. The arguments are groundless.

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

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)

arrow