Main Issues
Whether an administrative fine may be imposed on a person who is not the owner or exporter of a motor vehicle after filing an application for the registration of cancellation for the export of a motor vehicle (=the owner or exporter of a motor vehicle) and on a person who is not the owner or exporter of a motor vehicle for the registration of cancellation, on the ground that he/she did not report whether
Summary of Decision
A person who is required to file an application for the registration of cancellation for the export of a motor vehicle and make a report on the performance of the export of a motor vehicle shall be the owner of the motor vehicle or the exporter of the motor vehicle, and therefore, if the export of a motor vehicle is not reported after the application for the registration of cancellation, the person subject to an administrative fine shall be limited to the owner of the motor vehicle or the exporter of the motor vehicle. Thus, unless a person who has prepared and submitted an application for the registration of cancellation on his/her behalf falls under the owner of the motor vehicle or the exporter of the motor vehicle, even though he/she did not notify that he/she will act for the exporter while preparing and submitting the application for the registration
[Reference Provisions]
Article 13(1)6, (2), and (8) of the Automobile Management Act, and Article 84(1)3 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act
Re-appellant
Re-appellant
The order of the court below
Seoul Central District Court Order 2002Ra2492 dated October 28, 2004
Text
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below
In accordance with the records, the court below rejected the Re-Appellant's assertion that the Re-Appellant's imposition of a fine for negligence on the ground that the head of Seongdong-gu Office did not report the re-Appellant's export performance of the automobile of this case within six months after he applied for the registration of cancellation to export the Re-Appellant (vehicle No. 500,000 won) (hereinafter referred to as the "automobile of this case"). The court below acknowledged the Re-Appellant's objection that the first instance court was subject to a fine for negligence No. 20,000 won due to the Re-Appellant's objection, and the Re-Appellant merely performed the automobile export business of this case on behalf of the exporter of this case. The Re-Appellant's imposition of a fine for negligence is unjust. However, Article 13 (8) of the Automobile Management Act provides that the person who applied for the registration of cancellation for export of the automobile of this case shall report the performance of export.
2. The judgment of this Court
However, we cannot agree with such judgment of the court below.
In Article 13 (1) 6 of the Automobile Management Act, an owner of an automobile (including an administrator of an automobile; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) shall return an automobile registration certificate, a registration number plate, and a seal, and apply for the registration of cancellation (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of cancellation”) to the Mayor/Do governor. Article 13 (2) of the Automobile Management Act provides that in case of falling under paragraph (1) 6, an exporter of an automobile shall apply for the registration of cancellation under the provisions of paragraph (1) in lieu of the owner of the automobile concerned: Provided, That this provision shall not apply to the case where an owner of an automobile directly applies for the registration of cancellation under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Article 13 (8) of the Automobile Management Act provides that a person who has applied for the registration of cancellation under the provisions of Article 13 (8) of the Automobile Management Act shall report to the Mayor/Do governor as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and therefore, a person who violates the provisions of Article 13 (8) of the Automobile Management Act shall be exported of an automobile.
Therefore, as long as a person who has prepared and submitted an application for the registration of cancellation on behalf of an exporter is not an owner or an exporter of a motor vehicle, even if he/she did not notify the exporter of the fact that he/she will act for the exporter while preparing and submitting an application for the registration of cancellation on a motor vehicle or did not submit a document to prove the registration agency between the exporter and the exporter, he/she cannot impose a fine for negligence on the ground that he/she did not report whether to export the motor
기록에 의하면, 이 사건 자동차의 소유자는 주식회사 화신플랜트였고(당시 대표이사는 신청외 1이었던 것으로 보인다. 기록 25면 참조), 자동차의 수출자는 팻 마이미(대표자 신청외 2)였던 사실이 인정되며(기록 3면 참조), 재항고인이 이 사건 자동차의 말소등록을 신청할 당시 작성한 말소등록신청서의 신청인란에 수출자를 대행하여 신청을 한다는 사실을 기재하지는 않았지만, 당시 작성한 말소등록신청서에 이 사건 자동차의 소유자를 주식회사 화신플랜트로 기재하였고(기록 7면), 자동차 일시말소등록신청용으로 발급받은 이 사건 자동차에 대한 중고차수출예정증명서(기록 3면)에는 이 사건 자동차의 수출업자가 재항고인이 아닌 팻 마이미(대표자 신청외 2)로 기재되어 있었으므로, 재항고인이 이 사건 자동차의 소유자나 수출업자에는 해당하지 않았던 것으로 보이며, 더구나 이 사건 과태료의 부과관청인 성동구청의 담당자였던 신청외 3도 재항고인이 자동차 수출회사인 팻 마이미의 대리인으로 말소등록신청을 하였던 사실 자체는 인정하고 있는 것으로 보인다(기록 45면 참조).
Therefore, the court below should have further deliberated on the relation between the owner and exporter of the automobile in this case and the re-appellant, and judged whether the re-appellant is a party to report the application for cancellation of the automobile in this case under the Automobile Management Act, whether to perform export of the automobile in this case, and whether to impose a fine for negligence against the re-appellant. However, the court below's decision that the court below was justifiable to impose a fine for negligence on the re-appellant based only on the circumstances as stated in its reasoning without any deliberation on these circumstances is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the person subject to the disposition of imposition of a fine
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)