(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.09.02 2019가단13384 (1)

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) 의정부지방법원 2020.09.02 2019가단13384 (1)

자동차소유권이전등록절차인수 등

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On December 199, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the trading of a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”); (b) delivered the instant motor vehicle to the deceased on December 199 along with the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of the motor vehicle; (c) on November 25, 200, the Defendant purchased the instant motor vehicle from the deceased on November 25, 200; and (d) on November 19, 2001, the Defendant acquired the instant motor vehicle from C from the deceased on November 19, 201; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obliged

B. According to the record of No. 1, the South Sea Police Station of this court, and the fact-finding results with respect to the case of this case owned by the plaintiff, C, from November 25, 2000 to November 15, 2001, and the defendant subscribed to each automobile insurance from October 19, 2001 to September 14, 2002, and it is recognized that the traffic offense of the driver of this case committed by the defendant in the vicinity of the defendant's residence during the insurance period.

However, in light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① there is no evidence to confirm the purchase price, etc. that the Plaintiff received while disposing of the instant motor vehicle, and the Plaintiff did not know the name of the other party that the Plaintiff requested the sale. ② Even if the Defendant actually operated the instant motor vehicle during the said insurance period, if the Defendant’s relationship with C would not be ruled out, the possibility that the Defendant was allowed to use the instant motor vehicle without transferring the ownership of the instant motor vehicle, and even if it was operated by the Defendant, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant acquired the instant motor vehicle through the Plaintiff and C, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is without merit.

2. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원서산지원 2016.10.25 2014가단8501

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.06 2017가단5155089

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.08.05 2016가단102328

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.12.13 2015가단3899

-대구지방법원경주지원 2016.01.12 2015가단3306