In a case where Party A sold a motor vehicle to Party B after the completion of the ownership transfer registration for the motor vehicle to Party B; Party B sold the motor vehicle to Party B; Party C subsequently sold it to Party C; Party B did not apply for the ownership transfer registration; and Party B demanded Party B to acquire the ownership transfer registration procedure, the case holding that Party B is obligated to take over the ownership transfer registration procedure with Party B.

In a case where Party A sold a motor vehicle to Party B after the completion of the ownership transfer registration for the motor vehicle to Party B, and Party C sold the motor vehicle again to Party B, but Party B did not apply for the ownership transfer registration, and Party B requested Party B to acquire the ownership transfer registration procedure against Party B, the case holding that Party B is obligated to take over the ownership transfer registration procedure in light of the purport of Article 12(1) and (4) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act stipulating that “the owner recorded in the register at the time of application for the ownership transfer registration” may also apply for the ownership transfer registration in lieu of the transferee as a “transferr” of the motor vehicle in the motor vehicle register in lieu of the transferee, the person registered as the owner in the motor vehicle register can be seen as not only the person directly transferred the motor vehicle from Party B but also the person transferred or transferred the motor vehicle by Party B.

Article 12(1) and (4) of the Automobile Management Act

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm Cheongju, Attorney Cho Jae-hun, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Cheongju District Court Decision 2012Da2213 decided October 24, 2012

October 22, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant will take over from the plaintiff the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on February 7, 2009 with respect to the motor vehicles stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the following facts: Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 8 (including the paper number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the fact inquiry results of the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance

A. On October 11, 2002, the Plaintiff was registered by Nonparty 1 as the ownership transfer of the motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).

B. The Defendant (former name: the Defendant) entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the insured as the Defendant for the instant automobile with respect to the instant automobile between February 15, 2007 and April 8, 201, and used the instant automobile for the said period.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff requested the person who was not the name of the plaintiff to sell the motor vehicle of this case, and the defendant purchased the motor vehicle of this case through the person who was not the name of the plaintiff, so the defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure of the ownership

(2) The defendant's argument

The Defendant did not purchase the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff, and in fact, Nonparty 1 sold the instant vehicle to Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3 who represented Nonparty 2 again sold the instant vehicle to the Defendant on or around February 2007. However, the Defendant, while driving the instant vehicle and returning the instant vehicle to Nonparty 3 on or around April 201, rescinded the sales contract with Nonparty 2 by agreement.

Therefore, the obligor to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant motor vehicle from the Plaintiff is not the Defendant, but the Nonparty 1 or Nonparty 2.

B. Facts of recognition

The following facts may be admitted in each entry of evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 9, either in dispute between the parties, or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings:

(1) On October 11, 2002, Nonparty 1, while completing the ownership transfer registration on the instant vehicle, actually owned the instant vehicle. Nonparty 2 sold the instant vehicle at KRW 7 million to Nonparty 2 around July 6, 2004.

(2) After that, Nonparty 2 sold the instant vehicle to the Defendant through Nonparty 3 who represented himself on February 2007.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 12 of the Automobile Management Act, a person who takes over a registered motor vehicle shall file an application with the Mayor/Do Governor for the registration of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle (Paragraph 1), and where the transferee of the motor vehicle fails to file an application for the registration of transfer of ownership, the transferor (referring to the owner recorded in the register at the time of filing an application for the registration of transfer) may file an application in lieu

In light of the purport of the provision that “owner recorded in the register at the time of applying for the registration of transfer” as “transferr” of a motor vehicle and that the registration of transfer of ownership can be applied for in lieu of a transferee, it is reasonable to deem that not only the person who directly takes over the motor vehicle from him/her but also the person who has been transferred or transferred by him/her, may seek the acquisition of the transfer of ownership registration procedure.

According to the facts established above, the plaintiff is registered as the owner on the registration ledger of the motor vehicle of this case, and the defendant constitutes a person to whom the motor vehicle of this case was transferred through Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, and the defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure of the ownership transfer from the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

(2) As seen earlier, the Defendant asserted that: (a) purchased the instant motor vehicle from Nonparty 3, who was represented by Nonparty 2, around February 2007, and operated the instant motor vehicle; (b) returned the instant motor vehicle to Nonparty 3 on or around April 201; and (c) on or after the occurrence of the breakdown, the Defendant rescinded the said sales contract by agreement; (b) however, it is extremely unusual in light of the empirical rule that: (c) the cancellation of the sales contract for the instant motor vehicle ranging from February 2007 to April 201; (d) it is difficult to easily understand the fact that the instant motor vehicle ended; and (b) if the agreement was de facto rescinded, it would have to be settled between the parties; (c) in light of the fact that the Defendant failed to specifically state the details of settlement of the purchase price; and (d) there is no evidence as to this, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the instant motor vehicles was rescinded between Defendant 2 and Nonparty 2.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted as it is reasonable. However, the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment] Indication of Motor Vehicle: omitted

Judges Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)