자동차소유권이전등록절차인수
1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.
2. The action of a change in exchange in the trial shall be dismissed;
3...
1. Determination as to whether an appeal on the claim for the acquisition of transfer of ownership registration procedure is lawful
A. Since an appeal can only be filed against a judgment unfavorable to himself/herself, an appeal against the judgment that won the entire winning the case is unlawful as there is no benefit.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da20235 Decided July 13, 2007, etc.). B.
In the instant case, in the first instance court against the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant that “the Defendant shall accept the transfer of ownership registration procedure based on the termination of title trust as of the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case as to each of the instant automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant automobiles”). The first instance court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim for acceptance of this case, but only the Plaintiff appealed against the part of the instant claim for acceptance among the judgment of the first instance court, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the instant claim for acceptance was unlawful as there is no interest in appeal.
However, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the delivery date of the duplicate of the instant complaint on May 10, 2016 is the date of service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case. As such, the Plaintiff filed an appeal by mistake under Paragraph (2) of the text of the judgment of the first instance, and it is evident that the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case was on May 10, 2016. As such, the judgment of the first instance is a case where it is obvious that there was an erroneous calculation, entry, or other similar errors in the judgment, and thus, the correction thereof ex officio pursuant to Article 21
2. Determination as to the instant lawsuit’s claim for the acquisition of tax and public charges and the liability for payment
A. The plaintiff's assertion only entrusted the name of each of the instant automobiles to the plaintiff, and the defendant holds the operation control and operation benefits of each of the instant automobiles as the actual owner of each of the instant automobiles. Thus, the defendant is obligated to bear all the responsibilities arising in relation to each of the instant automobiles.