logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.07.15 2015노4265
자동차손해배상보장법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) was found to have driven the instant vehicle under the name of E on the date stated in the facts charged in the instant case, but the Defendant, after transferring the said company to C around August 25, 2004, only driven the said vehicle as an employee of the said company after transferring the said company to C, and thus, the Defendant is not a “owner of the instant vehicle”, and the company’s punishment for the Defendant is not a “owner of the instant vehicle,” and the company’s punishment for the Defendant does not meet the requirements for

2. The term “motor vehicle owner” under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Compensation (amended by Act No. 11369, Feb. 22, 2012) refers to the owner of the motor vehicle or the person entitled to use the motor vehicle, who operates the motor vehicle for himself/herself.

Article 46(2) of the Act provides that “A person who has the right to use a motor vehicle shall be construed as including all persons entitled to use a motor vehicle on his/her own behalf.” Thus, the subject of the crime of violation of Article 46(2) of the Act cannot be interpreted by limiting the subject to the crime to the registered owner of the motor vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1018, Apr. 23, 2004). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: ① A, a person who was transferred a corporation E from the defendant around August 2004, received only the name of the company and the right to use the bus in the name of the defendant and the right to use the bus in the name of the company, and a vehicle registered in the name of the company was actually owned by the borrower, and if the ownership of the motor vehicle was acquired under the name of the company, the vehicle should not be deemed to have been leased to the same effect as the vehicle of this case.

arrow