[1] Whether the part concerning a part of a body falls under the scope of work of a motor vehicle maintenance business that cannot be operated as a business without registration (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the defendant's coloring work of one body falls under the automobile maintenance business's work scope in light of the method and scope of the work according to the process

[1] Article 132 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act (Article 132 subparagraph 6 of the Automobile Management Act), one of the items belonging to the work scope of the automobile maintenance business, is carrying out the seal of the automobile body, and only the part concerning the part of the body is different from the seal of the body, and it is not specially excluded from the work scope of the vehicle. Thus, even though it is a part concerning the part of the body, the seal work on the vehicle body cannot be carried out without the registration of the automobile maintenance business unless it is done unless it is done to the extent that the part concerning the body is removed by means of the separation or licking of the body on the part of the body caused by a simple tool, such as a string or lsheshesheshesheshesheshes, etc.

[2] The case holding that the defendant's coloring work of one body falls under the automobile maintenance business's work scope in light of the method and scope of the work according to the process

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 132 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 132 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1490 decided Jun. 9, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1697)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2004No7 delivered on April 7, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 132 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act (Article 132 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act), one of the parts belonging to the work scope of the automobile maintenance business, is carrying out the painting of the automobile body, and the parts concerning the parts of the vehicle are different from the seal of the entire body, and it is not specially excluded from the scope of the work. Thus, even if it is a partial design for the parts of the vehicle, the seal work on the vehicle body may not be conducted without registering the automobile maintenance business unless it is done unless it is merely a degree of removing the defects in the parts generated in the vehicle using a simple tool, such as a press or bushesheshesheshesheshesheshes, unless it is done by removing the defects in the parts generated in the vehicle body (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do1490, Jun. 9, 200).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (i) The contents of the coloring work of the vehicle maintained by the court of first instance, namely, ① the Defendant’s body coloring part of the body coloring part of the body coloring, and applied the gas sprayers connected to the body of the turbine (the largest 2-mam power), and gone through a process of building it by using the red-ray heat drying machine; (ii) the scope of the vehicle is extended to the left side of the vehicle as indicated in the judgment, the front and rear even after the front, and in particular, in the case of the back-rayer, the vehicle coloring part of the body parts consisting of a coloring part of the vehicle as well as a wide range of body parts of the vehicle; and (iii) the Defendant’s body color work cannot be registered in light of the method and scope of coloring work according to its process, and there is no violation of the legal principles or the records as alleged in the judgment below.

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

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)