Whether a person who has sold and delivered a heavy flag and has delivered documents necessary for the transfer of his name is the person liable to renew the registration number plate.

On April 10, 1973, 1976, which was much more than the announcement of the Ministry of Construction on April 12, 1976, ordering the defendant to renew the mid-term registration number plate, the defendant sold the mid-term owner to another person and delivered documents necessary for the transfer of his name, and the mid-term scrapping disposition was actually discarded at that time, the defendant remains in the form of the mid-term registration number plate of the renewal period stipulated in the announcement of the above Construction Part. Thus, the defendant cannot be held liable to renew the mid-term registration number plate and attach a new registration number plate.

Articles 8(1) and 34 of the Mid-Term Management Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 80No1063 delivered on November 21, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendant sold and delivered to another person the mid-term of this case, which is far earlier than the public notice on April 12, 1976 of the Construction Division to renew the mid-term registration number plate, and delivered documents necessary for transferring the name, and the mid-term of this case was actually scrapped at that time.

In the same way, the defendant cannot be deemed to bear the obligation under Article 8 (1) of the Mid-Term Management Act, on the ground that the defendant remains formally on the mid-term renewal period register as set forth in the above construction announcement in the middle-term renewal period in the above construction announcement, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant bears the obligation under Article 8 (1) of the above mid-term Management Act, which is to renew the registration number plate and attach a new registration number plate. In this opinion, the measure which the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that rendered a verdict of innocence to the defendant is justifiable

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

Justices Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Justice)