In cases where the ownership of a vehicle is registered in the name of a seller without paying the purchase price, whether the seller is a person who operates a motor vehicle for his/her own sake (affirmative)

In cases where the ownership of a vehicle is registered in the name of a seller without paying the purchase price, the seller is a person who operates an automobile for himself/herself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act even if there is no de facto interest by delivering the vehicle to the buyer.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Young-chul and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Lee Jong-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant Park Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na27148 delivered on December 5, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

In the event that the Defendant was registered in the Defendant’s future without obtaining approval of the purchase price of the instant vehicle until the time of the instant accident, as recognized by the Defendant himself, the Defendant constitutes “a person who operates an automobile for his own sake” under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act even if there is no de facto interest by delivering the vehicle to the Nonparty. Therefore, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as pointed out in the lower judgment to

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 operated the 2nd line with the judgment of the court below on the basis of the evidence that the non-party 1 operated the press car owned by the defendant while driving the 2nd line with the judgment of the court below, and recognized the fact that the accident of this case occurred after receiving the flap car from the flap car operated in the opposite line beyond the Gap own central line as set forth in the judgment below. The court below's fact-finding is just and there

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)