The case where it is not deemed to be a person who operates an automobile for himself/herself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Although a motor vehicle had already been sold to another person before the accident, but the ownership transfer registration of the motor vehicle did not take effect, and even if the ownership of the motor vehicle was reserved to the defendant at the time of the accident, if the defendant, at the time of the sale, handed over the motor vehicle to the buyer, received the payment, and delivered the payment to the buyer, and did not participate in the operation and management of the interest vehicle to the buyer, and only the buyer only gains exclusive and exclusive operation, the defendant at the time of the accident cannot be deemed to be "the person who operates the motor vehicle for his own sake" under Article

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294Da1240 Decided March 8, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 10 ① Citizens 190 and summary of the Judgment and Article 756(26)553 of the Civil Act)

Supreme Court Decision 70Da1554 Decided September 29, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 9135 delivered on September 20, 197, Supreme Court Decision 18Third civils 135 delivered on Supreme Court Decision and Article 3(5)1857 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act)

Supreme Court Decision 71Da617 delivered on May 24, 1971 (Kaad. 9680 delivered on May 24, 197, Supreme Court Decision 19 ② citizen 63 delivered on June 19, 196, Supreme Court Decision 3(18)1857 delivered on the Guarantee

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 11, 1970

Busan District Court Decision 69Da3056 delivered on December 23, 1969

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 4,046,542 won and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the next day of service to the next day of full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (1).

The same shall apply to the order.

1967. 11. 19. 15:20경 진해시 태백동 3 소재 태백세탁소 앞길에서 마침 자전거를 타고 가던 원고가 소외 1이 운전하던 (차량번호 생략) 찝차에 치여 상처를 입은 사실, 그 당시 위 자동차가 자동차 등록원부상 피고의 소유명의로 등록되어 있었던 사실은 당사자간에 다툼이 없는 바,

The plaintiff's attorney argues that the defendant is the user of the above driver's 1 and is responsible for compensating for all damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above accident. The defendant has registered the above motor vehicle under the name of the defendant at the time of the above accident. However, the above motor vehicle was registered under the name of the defendant at the time of the above accident. The plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's 1's 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and the non-party 2 and 3's testimony each of the above 1, 2 and 3's 9's 9's 1, 1965's 9's 6's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 1,000's 9's 6's 9's 1,000's 9's 1,000 won 's 9'''s 7''''''''''''''''''''s 1,

Therefore, even if the ownership of the automobile was reserved to the defendant at the time of the accident, since the automobile was already sold to another before the accident, but the ownership transfer is not registered, it does not take effect. Therefore, as seen above, even if the ownership of the automobile was reserved to the defendant at the time of the accident, the defendant, as the seller at the time of the sale, is not actually involved in the operation and management of the automobile since it was delivered to the non-party company, the purchaser of the automobile, and then delivered to the buyer the documents for ownership transfer registration, and it was never involved in the management of the automobile, and the non-party company, as the buyer, has exercised almost exclusive control over its operation, such as employing the driver and managing the vehicle regardless of the intention of the defendant, who is the seller of the automobile, who is the buyer of the automobile, has been transferred the vehicle, and the accident occurred to the interest of its operation. Therefore, at the time of the accident, the defendant cannot be viewed as the "person who operates the automobile for his own own purpose" of Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act at the time of the accident.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages under the Civil Act or the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act on the premise that the Defendant is the user of the instant accident driver or the operator of the instant automobile is a person operating the instant automobile, is dismissed without having to make any judgment on any other points. Therefore, it is unreasonable to dismiss the original judgment on the ground that it is unfair to have different purport of the original judgment, and thus, it shall be revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act and the litigation costs shall be borne by the losing

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)