(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015. 1. 15. 선고 2014나9217(본소), 2014나9224(반소) 판결[자동차소유권이전등록말소·자동차인도명령][미간행]
Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1 and one other (Attorney Choi Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant-Counterclaim (Law Firm Mancheon, Attorneys Cho Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim)
December 11, 2014
Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Da44458 (Main Office), 2013Kadan61835 (Counterclaim) Decided August 8, 2014
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
1. Purport of claim
(a) Main claim;
The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) has fulfilled the procedure for cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed by No. 8732 on June 12, 2013, with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet, to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
(b) Counterclaim;
The plaintiffs shall deliver to the defendant the vehicle listed in the separate sheet, and pay to the defendant the amount of 5% per annum from June 12, 2013 to the delivery date of the claim for counter-claim and the application for change of cause, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.
2. Purport of appeal
The part against the plaintiff among the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the defendant's counterclaim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.
1. Scope of the judgment of this court;
At the first instance court, the Plaintiff is the principal claim for the cancellation of the ownership transfer of an automobile, and the Defendant primarily requested for the counterclaim to pay KRW 26 million in advance. All claims in the principal lawsuit are accepted, the main claim is dismissed, and part of the main claim was accepted, and it is evident in the record that only the Plaintiff filed an appeal. Therefore, only the part of the conjunctive claim against the Plaintiff (the part partly quoted in the conjunctive claim) among the counterclaim claim is subject to adjudication of this court.
2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part concerning “1. Recognizing the facts of recognition” and “a judgment on the conjunctive claim.”
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
[Attachment]
Judges Park Byung-dae(Presiding Judge)