The case holding that it does not constitute a deception, in purchasing a motor vehicle which has not undergone a continuous inspection under Article 50 of the former Road Transport Vehicles Act (Law No. 3307 of Dec. 31, 1980), the said motor vehicle does not constitute a fraudulent act.

Even if the continued inspection under Article 50 of the former Road Transport Vehicles Act (Law No. 3307, Dec. 31, 1980) was not conducted, it cannot be deemed that the vehicle was a vehicle to be cancelled as a matter of course in the absence of the highest procedure of inspection and cancellation by the competent authority under Articles 49-2, 14(1)5, (2), and (3) of the same Act, and even if the registration is cancelled, it can be re-registered as long as it is an automobile meeting the registration standards under Article 8 of the same Act. Thus, even if the registration is cancelled, it can be re-registered at the time of the contract for the sale of the vehicle, unless there was the highest procedure of inspection and cancellation by the competent authority at the time of the contract for the sale of the vehicle, or if it conforms to the standards that can be re-registered after the cancellation, it cannot be deemed that the seller

Article 347 of the Criminal Act, Articles 50, 49, 14, 8, and 7 of the former Road Transport Vehicles Act (Law No. 3307, Dec. 31, 1980)

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 84No700 delivered on July 19, 1985

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. For its reasons, the court below decided that the defendant conspired with the non-indicted 1 on November 23, 1982 and applied for the registration of cancellation of the vehicle at the same time as the above 15:00, 5 tons of 5 tons of 5 tons of 1967, which is owned by the defendant, should not be registered until July 15, 1967, because it is impossible to make new registration due to the fact that 320,000 won or more of 320,000 won of 320,000,000 won of 4,000 won of 7,000,000,000 won or more of 4,000 won of 7,000,000 won of 7,000,000 won or more of 4,000 won of 7,000,000 won of 7,000 won or more of 3,000,000.

The court below held that, as a matter of course, since the inspection certificate was not inspected even after the expiration of the term of validity at the time when the defendant entered into a sales contract for a motor vehicle in its judgment, the registration was naturally cancelled, and the defendant's registration was entirely impossible after the cancellation of the registration. However, as seen above, if even at the time of the original sales contract, there was no peremptory procedure for inspection and cancellation at the time of the original sales contract, or if the motor vehicle satisfies the standards that can be re-registered even after its cancellation, it cannot be deemed that the defendant deceiving the victim even if the defendant did not have any defect at the time of the above sales contract or made it possible to re-register

The court below should have taken account of whether there was a peremptory notice of the continuation inspection and registration cancellation of the above automobile at the time of the above sales contract, and even in the case of the household cancellation, it should have taken account of whether the automobile meets the criteria for re-registration, and thus, the defendant's act constitutes a deception, which is recognized as illegal act without any evidence, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by misapprehending the legal principles as to the procedure for cancelling the registration of the automobile and the requirements for new registration, which constitutes an unlawful act of fraud and the violation of the Road Transport Vehicle Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment below

2. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is all reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)