Legal nature of so-called "ination"

In the external relation with a third party, even though he loses his status as the owner, in case where he obtains again the operating right of the motor vehicle from the company affiliated with it, he may claim damages against the person who has inflicted damage on the motor vehicle.

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (4293 civil correspondence74)

This case is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff shall deposit a gold of 200,000 dollars as security, and a provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (1) of the original judgment.

The plaintiff (appellant) was summoned but did not appear on the date of oral argument at each trial at the trial, and the defendant (appellant)'s attorney revoked the part of the plaintiff's winning judgment among the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second trials.

According to the statement made by the Defendant as the party to the attendance, the method of statement and proof of the facts of both parties to the defendant is that the freight automobile transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act is operated only by the person who obtained the permission of the Minister of Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the so-called "Borrower" who owns the automobile under the name of the said licensed operator after transferring the ownership of the automobile to the said licensed operator. Thus, externally, the ownership of the automobile is entirely transferred to the licensed operator, and all public charges and other external obligations are borne by the licensed operator, and the borrower is not obliged to pay a fixed amount of money to the licensed operator and operate the automobile. Accordingly, in this case, the plaintiff cannot directly claim compensation for damages to the defendant. In the original case, the defendant owned the automobile and used the automobile to the non-party 4, who was temporarily leased the automobile to the non-party 4 because he was abandoned in Daegu mother, and thus it was impossible to use the automobile under the name of the non-party 1 corporation by purchasing the automobile in the name of the non-party 2 corporation.

According to the evidence No. 13 of the court below without dispute over the plaintiff's testimony and establishment of the non-party 3 witness Gap, the plaintiff's main cargo was originally owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was so-called "the non-party 1" against this recognition, and the non-party 1's testimony against the non-party 4 cannot be done early, and the defendant seized this automobile on December 30, 4290 based on the provisional pressure decision of the Daejeon District Court as security against the non-party 4, but the plaintiff won the lawsuit in the name of the non-party 4, and thus, the plaintiff cannot be held liable for damages for the non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's right to appeal.

In full view of Gap evidence without dispute over the establishment of a year and the batteries of party pleadings, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having paid 92,370 % of the repair cost incurred by the defendant, and according to the testimony of non-party 3 of the court below, it can be recognized as having raised an interest of 1,00,000 won on the monthly average at the time of seizure. All of the facts are clear that the period of provisional seizure of the vehicle for recognition is eight months and is 88,000 won if it is converted to the preferred amount, so the defendant would be 88,000 % of the construction cost of the vehicle and 88,000 % of the amount claimed by the plaintiff from the present automobile repair cost of the defendant, so the defendant would be liable to pay 968,000 % of the total amount of damages and 968,0000 % of the amount of provisional execution as stated in Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the defendant's indictment based on the above judgment is reasonable, and without merit.

Judges Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Judge)