자동차인도
1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) On June 14, 2012, the Plaintiff is a motor vehicle listed in B and the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).
(3) A contract for the lease of an automobile (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) to the effect that the acquisition cost is KRW 129,800,450, monthly rent of KRW 2,926,00 (payment on the 30th of each month) and the lease period of KRW 60,00, and that if the monthly rent is delayed at least twice, the contract may be terminated and the return of the instant automobile may be claimed (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).
(1) The term “instant lease agreement” (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) was concluded.
(2) From May 31, 2014, B did not pay the monthly rent under the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff. On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on the grounds of delinquency in monthly rent, and notified the Plaintiff of the refund of the instant vehicle by August 5, 2014.
3) Meanwhile, Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”).
1) The Defendant and the Appointor jointly possess the instant vehicle. 【The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant and the selected person, without legitimate authority, jointly possess the instant vehicle owned by the plaintiff and interfere with the exercise of the plaintiff's ownership. Thus, the defendant and the selected person are obliged to deliver the instant vehicle to the plaintiff seeking the exclusion of interference based on ownership.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was to repay the secured debt securing the mortgage in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant automobile.
Nevertheless, it is unreasonable to seek delivery of the instant vehicle when the Plaintiff rejected the Defendant’s proposal for any particular reason.
B. We examine the judgment, and just because the defendant's internal rain alone is sufficient, the defendant and the appointed person can refuse to deliver the motor vehicle of this case to the plaintiff.