점유보호 청구 의 소
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. Following the counterclaim filed by this court.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 19, 2017, the Defendant loaned KRW 8 million from a lending company (E) and delivered the instant vehicle as security, and issued a car loan agreement (Evidence 1), a vehicle storage/vehicle waiver/automobile operation certificate/automobile operation certificate (A2), and a written consent to the transfer of a vehicle (A3) and a certificate of personal seal impression.
B. On April 2018, the Plaintiff paid cash to the lending company and received all documents related to the Defendant’s loan obligations together with the instant vehicle, and operated the instant vehicle.
C. On May 24, 2018, the Defendant received a notice of imposition of a fine for negligence on the violation of parking and stopping regulations, and applied for the order to suspend the operation of the instant vehicle to the Mayor of Yeongdeungpo-gu on May 24, 2018. At the time, the Mayor publicly announced the order to suspend the operation of the same day pursuant to Article 24-2(2)1 of the Automobile Management Act
On June 29, 2018, Jin-si received a report of illegal stopping of the instant vehicle, and confirmed that it is a vehicle subject to an order to suspend operation and contacted the Defendant who is the owner.
The Defendant was issued an order to suspend the operation of the instant vehicle and recovered the instant vehicle in the presence of the relevant person and the police officer when the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant is the owner.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff paid a loan to the lender for consideration and acquired the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant at the same time, and occupied the instant vehicle offered as security. However, since the Defendant recovered the instant vehicle without the Plaintiff’s intent, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, the possessor. 2) Even if the Defendant is the owner of the instant vehicle, he/she is the owner of the instant vehicle, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff as the possessor.