소유권이전등록 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. On March 31, 2005, the fact that the automobile registration was made in the name of the Plaintiff on March 31, 2005 as to the automobiles listed in the attached list of the basic facts (hereinafter “instant automobile”). There is no dispute between the parties.
2. On March 31, 2005, the Plaintiff’s judgment on the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for the cancellation of the registration of the instant automobile among the instant lawsuit was made by forging or falsely preparing an application for the registration of the instant automobile under the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the instant automobile on March 31, 2005 and applying for the registration in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant automobile, even though being aware of the fact, the Defendants asserted that they are liable to implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the instant automobile. However, according to Article 28 of the Automobile Management Act, a person who has an objection to the registration made by the Mayor/Do Governor may file an objection under the conditions as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, request for administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act, or institute an administrative litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, this part
I would like to say.
3. On March 8, 2005, the Plaintiff’s judgment as to the claim for change of the name of the automobile registration and the claim for refund of money was refused to perform the obligation of delivery even upon the Plaintiff’s repeated request by asserting that the Defendant Company had delivered the instant vehicle that was not yet released to D, despite the Plaintiff’s employees and D, who were the Plaintiff’s father, for sale of 26,852,000 won of the purchase price between K and D on March 8, 2005. Although the Plaintiff was paid KRW 6,852,000 out of the above purchase price, the Defendant Company refused to deliver the said vehicle to D. As such, the above sales contract was delivered by a duplicate of the complaint of this case where the Plaintiff expressed his intent of cancellation on the grounds of the Defendant’s refusal of performance or delay.