Whether a transferee who acquired an insurance vehicle and registered the vehicle transfer under his name constitutes a person using or managing an automobile with the consent of the registered insured under the General Insurance Terms and Conditions for the Automobile (negative)

If a person who is using or managing an automobile with the consent of the registered insured under the general terms and conditions of automobile insurance provides the insured as the insured, the registered insured refers to the insured who enjoy operating control or operating benefits for the insured automobile, and if the transferee was employed by the transferee after obtaining the insurance vehicle and completing the registration of vehicle relocation in the name of the transferee and then the transferee was involved in the accident while driving the vehicle, the registered insured person has already lost the right to operate or controlling the automobile by transferring the ownership of the vehicle to the transferee, so the transferee cannot be regarded as a person who is using or managing the vehicle with the consent of the registered insured under the above terms and conditions.

Articles 679 and 719 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Da7708 delivered on December 11, 1990 (Gong1991, 461) 91Da14796 delivered on July 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 2250) 91Da1158 delivered on August 9, 191 (Gong191, 2314)

Dokk Germany, Inc.

Dol Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na27763 delivered on October 31, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the non-party 1 entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the above non-party 1 and six months with respect to the truck of this case with the defendant on August 29, 198. The name of the owner on the register of automobile of the above truck changed from the non-party 2 to the plaintiff on November 18 of the same year. The non-party 3, who is the driver of the plaintiff company, operated the above truck on December 2 of the same year, caused a traffic accident to the non-party 4, which caused the death. Further, the above non-party 1 paid the insurance money to the non-party 1 to the above non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who purchased the above non-party 1's personal business chain ○○ and the non-party 2, who purchased the above non-party 1's personal automobile of this case on August 20, 1988.

2. However, if a person who is in charge of the use or management of an automobile with the consent of the registered insured under the general terms and conditions of the automobile insurance, is the insured who enjoys the operation control or operation interest of the insured automobile. If the transferee was involved in the accident while driving the automobile under the name of the transferee after the acquisition of the insurance vehicle and the registration of the transfer of the automobile, the registered insured person shall not be deemed to be the person who is in charge of the use or management of the automobile with the consent of the registered insured under the above terms and conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da1158, Aug. 9, 191; 91Da14796, Jul. 26, 191). Since the facts duly established by the court below, the above non-party 1 acquired the above automobile from the non-party 2 and actually acquired it from the non-party 1 and lost the ownership of the automobile under the above terms and conditions of the Plaintiff's insurance company's establishment and management.

In conclusion, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the insured under the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract, on the premise that the transfer of the insured motor vehicle during the insurance period as above is limited and that the above non-party 1 is still regarded as the named insured, and that the plaintiff is a person using the motor vehicle with his/her consent. Thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff

A decision of 90Da7708 on a party member cannot be said to be the same as this case in a specific case.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)