beta
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2019.01.17 2018가단4930

자동차소유권이전등록

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 21, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an entrusted management contract for automobile transport business (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to pay management expenses of KRW 250,000 per month to the Plaintiff while operating the instant automobile, which is entrusted by the Plaintiff as the management and operation right, to the Plaintiff.

B. The grounds for termination under the instant contract are as follows.

Article 11 (Grounds for Termination of Contract) (1) The plaintiff and the defendant may terminate the contract by mutual agreement even during the contract period.

② The Plaintiff may terminate the contract where the Defendant falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where a motor vehicle invested in kind is disposed of to reduce the number due to a traffic accident;

2. Where he/she evades regular inspections of motor vehicles on at least two occasions;

3. Where he/she violates the code of practice of transport employees under Article 12 of the Trucking Transport Business Act;

4. Where the defendant concludes an entrustment contract by fraud or other improper means, (3) Where the plaintiff intends to cancel the contract, he/she shall specify the violation of the contract with a grace period of at least two months and notify the defendant of the fact that the contract will be terminated without correction.

Provided, That this shall not apply where there is a serious reason to make it impracticable to continue the entrustment contract as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act.

C. At the time of the instant contract, the location of the Plaintiff’s head office was Ulsan-gu C, and the Defendant’s domicile was D at the port of port.

On June 22, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred the location of its head office to Gwangju Mine-gu E.

The plaintiff requested the defendant to consent to the transfer of the headquarters for the reason that the consent of the branch owner is necessary to complete the procedure of the relocation of the headquarters, but the defendant did not comply with it.