자동차소유권이전등록
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
On February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the entry of the instant cargo vehicles (hereinafter “instant land entry contract”) with the content that the Defendant would leave the instant cargo vehicle to the Plaintiff.
(A) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not pay part of the increased rent each month after the instant land entry contract. Thus, the Plaintiff terminated the instant land entry contract. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to accept the procedure for applying for the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant cargo vehicle from the Plaintiff and pay the increased unpaid rent.
Judgment
The plaintiff seems to have raised the rent by unilateral declaration of intention as the representative has changed on June 1, 2016.
(A) In light of the evidence No. 3 and the evidence No. 7-1 of the instant land entry agreement, the first land entry management fee for the land entry fee was adjusted through consultation with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was agreed to adjust the land entry fee according to the inflation rate changed each year (Article 6 of the instant land entry agreement), and the ground entry fee standard was based on the “the inflation rate changed every year” or the Plaintiff maintained the amount of the land entry fee until April 1, 2017 after the land entry fee was increased on June 1, 2016 (Evidence No. 3). Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff cannot raise the land entry fee by one’s unilateral declaration of intent for at least one year after the conclusion of the contract.
In addition, even if the plaintiff can increase the admission fee by unilateral expression of intent, the increase amount should be in accordance with the increase rate according to the above increase rate agreement, and it is difficult to view the increased increase rate as the basis of the increase rate.
From 165,00 won to 275,000 won, 66% of the Plaintiff’s admission fee was raised.
(A) Therefore, since it cannot be said that the defendant delayed the payment of the admission fee based on the admission fee raised by the plaintiff by a unilateral declaration of intent, the plaintiff's claim based on such premise cannot be accepted.