자동차인도
1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. On March 25, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) through a used vehicle D, D, and completed the registration of the transfer of the ownership of the motor vehicle in the name of the Plaintiff.
B. On June 2010, the Plaintiff requested B to commission the instant automobile, and signed each Plaintiff’s corporate seal on the blank “automobile transfer certificate (transferr, transferee’s direct transaction certificate), delegation certificate, “automobile rental contract”, and “vehicle transport agreement and letter,” and delivered the said car to B along with the Plaintiff’s corporate register and the corporate seal imprint certificate.
The letter of delegation states that "I, in the same letter, delegate to the above agent all the affairs arising from (registration of change or cancellation of ownership), registration of cancellation or new registration of change or cancellation of ownership), registration and issuance of (issuance of Certificate of Registration of Re-issuance of Collateral Security) No. 1 (Public Notice)."
C. B, along with the above documents received from the Plaintiff on July 28, 2010, offered the instant vehicle as security and received KRW 31.5 million from C.
C, along with the above documents, offered the instant vehicle to D as security, and received KRW 50 million, and the Defendant accepted the instant vehicle and documents in settling a part of the claim against D.
E. After the instant automobile was transferred to the Plaintiff on March 25, 2010, the title was not changed until now, and the mortgage created by the mortgagee E was established on May 20, 201 by the Defendant, the maximum debt amount of KRW 70 million, and the mortgagee E.
F. B was convicted of the facts constituting the act of embezzlement of the instant motor vehicle by arbitrarily providing the instant motor vehicle as collateral while borrowing KRW 35 million from C while being entrusted with the sale of the instant motor vehicle by the Plaintiff.
(Based on the fact that there is no dispute over Seoul Eastern District Court 2012 Ma1568 / [based], Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 4.