beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.12.17 2015가단36101

소유권이전등록

Text

1. The Defendant terminated the consignment management contract on July 1, 2015 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 30, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an entrustment contract for transportation business (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the ownership of an automobile indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobile”) invested in kind between the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall vest in the Defendant, but the Defendant shall be entrusted with the operation and management right of the automobile and pay monthly commissions to the Defendant.

B. A duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant contract was served on July 1, 2015 on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant contract is externally registered in the name of the Defendant and vests in the Defendant’s ownership and operation management rights. However, in fact, the Plaintiff, the actual borrower, entrusted the Defendant with his own operation management rights under his own independent account and managed the Defendant’s management rights, and is in the form of a combination of title trust and the elements of delegation with the intent to pay a certain amount of deposit fees, etc. monthly as remuneration for using the Defendant’s registration title of freight trucking services and performing the Plaintiff’s external management duties. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff may terminate the instant contract at any time. As such, the instant contract was lawfully terminated by notifying the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant contract as the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to perform the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile on July 1, 2015, on the ground that the termination of the instant contract, barring any other circumstances.

B. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant received the name from the Plaintiff, except for the registration number plate, among the instant vehicles.