자동차인도
1. The defendant shall deliver the vehicle listed in the attached Form to the plaintiff.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3.Paragraph 1.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed money from the Defendant to the Defendant as a security for the said obligation; (b) in the event that the Defendant did not repay the amount of KRW 5 million to the Defendant by February 23, 2013, the Plaintiff confirmed that the instant motor vehicle is waived.
The letter of renunciation of the vehicle was drawn up.
B. The plaintiff delivered the above automobile to the defendant around the above time, and was unable to repay the debt to the defendant until the closing date of the pleading.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Defendant possessed the instant motor vehicle owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the said motor vehicle to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
3. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, since the defendant provided the automobile of this case as collateral and borrowed money, the defendant has a legitimate right to possess it. Thus, he cannot respond to the plaintiff's request for extradition until he is paid the principal and interest of the loan.
The facts that the Defendant lent money to the Plaintiff on January 23, 2013, and possessed the instant vehicle by acquiring it as security are as seen earlier.
However, an automobile can only be the object of a mortgage under Articles 3 and 9 of the Act on Mortgage on Motor Vehicles and other Specific Movables, and cannot be the object of a pledge, which is a real right to secure possession for the purpose of securing credit. Thus, an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which guarantees loan obligations by having the Defendant, the obligee, occupy the automobile in this case, shall be null and void. Since the Defendant did not complete the ownership transfer registration for the automobile in this case, the ownership transfer right for the automobile in this case shall not be deemed to have been established.