(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.28 2014나5412

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.28 2014나5412

자동차소유권이전등록절차인수

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 18, 2004, the Plaintiff borrowed money from C as security, set up a mortgage on the automobiles listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) and delivered the said automobiles to C around that time.

B. On September 14, 2007, the Defendant: (a) entered into an automobile insurance contract with a lot damage insurance company and the Plaintiff as the insured on September 14, 2007; and (b) operated the said automobile while maintaining the insurance contract until September 14, 2009.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 6, fact-finding results on the head of Mapo-gu court of first instance, the purport of all pleadings

2. The party's assertion and its determination were delivered by the Plaintiff along with all documents necessary for the registration of transfer of the instant motor vehicle as a collateral from C while borrowing money from C, but thereafter C transferred the said motor vehicle to the Defendant by exercising the security right, so the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was obligated to take over the said motor vehicle from C, and that the Defendant did not lend money to C, and there was only carbon for the said period, and that it did not have taken over the said motor vehicle, and there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant did not have taken over the said motor vehicle through C, and there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant would have received KRW 2 million from C in the preparatory document dated June 20, 2014. However, in addition to the previous purport of the statement in subparagraph 6 and the testimony of the witness at the trial, the Defendant did not have any money borrowed from C, and it was difficult for the Defendant to have taken over the instant motor vehicle.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2014.08.28 2014가단2665

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.26 2018나16309

-수원지방법원 2020.05.21 2018가단548070

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.23 2018가단47999

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.10.26 2016고정1113