Liability of the name holder of a company using a motor vehicle;

If the vehicle is registered as the owner of the defendant company and the vehicle is marked as the vehicle belonging to the defendant company, the company shall be liable for the transaction of the actual owner of the vehicle under the Commercial Act.

Article 24 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff

Man New Transport Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (74Gahap2404) in the first instance trial

1. Of the original judgment, the part against the Plaintiff regarding the cited part of the Plaintiff’s claim as described in paragraph (2) below shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 780,245 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from September 13, 1974 to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

5. Provisional execution may be effected for the above paragraph (2).

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 780,246 won and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from July 21, 1972 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

Judgment such as cancellation of the original judgment and purport of the claim

According to the facts that seven buses listed in the separate sheet of vehicle number column (hereinafter referred to as the "vehicle of this case") are registered under the name of the defendant company on the register of vehicle of this case, there is no dispute between the parties, and the defendant's testimony of non-party 1 to 7, the evidence Nos. 3-1 through 6, 4-1 through 14, 5-1 through 7 (each of the books and records), 6 and 7, 8-1 through 6, 9-1 through 8, 10-1 through 8, 11-1, 11-4 (each of the above facts that the non-party 2's testimony of non-party 1, non-party 3 and the non-party 5-2's testimony of the court below is recognized as the defendant's own profits of the above company of this case and the non-party 3's own profits of the defendant's own profits of the above company of this case, and the plaintiff's profits of this case are not so-called the defendant's own profits of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum, which is a civil interest rate pursuant to the plaintiff's claim, from September 13, 1974 to the date of receiving the delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the claim of this case as of September 4, 1974, as the aggregate of the remaining amounts of the above oil unit, as the co-payment of the above oil unit balance, to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case of this case is justified within the above recognition, and it is reasonable to accept it in part and dismiss the remainder. Since the part against the plaintiff as to the part which accepted the plaintiff's claim of this case among the original judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim with different conclusions, the remaining appeal of this case is dismissed without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 96, proviso of Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 199 of the same Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Judge)