beta
Text
1. Defendant C shall deliver to the Plaintiff the vehicles listed in the attached Form.
It is impossible to enforce compulsory execution against the motor vehicle.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a motor vehicle indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).
B. Around January 2013, Nonparty D arbitrarily sold the instant motor vehicle to Defendant B, and Defendant B lent the said motor vehicle to Defendant C, and Defendant C currently operates the said motor vehicle.
C. After Defendant C commenced the operation of the instant vehicle, the administrative fine was KRW 1,512,920.
The transaction value of the instant vehicle around 2013 is at least 40 million won.
[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 through 18 (including branch numbers for those with numbers)
2. Determination
A. According to the facts based on the cited part, ① Defendant C is obligated to deliver the said vehicle to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant vehicle. If compulsory execution is impossible, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 38,00,000,000, which is the transaction value of the instant vehicle, and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from May 21, 2015 to the day of full payment, on the record that the copy of the claim claim claim and the application form for change of the cause of the instant vehicle was served to Defendant C, as the transaction value of the instant vehicle, from May 13, 2015 to the day of full payment. ② The Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,512,920, which was incurred in relation to the instant vehicle and the amount of annual payment from May 21, 2015 to the day of full payment.
B. Part 1) The request for the delivery of the instant vehicle against Defendant B and the request for the delivery based on ownership against the illegal possessor of the instant claim shall be made against the person who actually occupies the object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da187, May 10, 1983).