(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2015.04.30 2014가단6513

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) 청주지방법원충주지원 2015.04.30 2014가단6513

자동차소유권이전등록절차인수 등

Text

1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall set forth in the attached list from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On March 11, 201, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant acquired a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) on March 11, 201 and received the delivery, and then used the pertinent motor vehicle without transferring its name to the Defendant, and that the Defendant was liable to pay the fine for negligence, motor vehicle tax, etc. incurred on the said motor vehicle, and sought confirmation that the said liability for payment was the Defendant.

ex officio, the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is a dispute between the parties regarding the legal relationship subject to it, and the judgment of confirmation is deemed to be the most effective and appropriate means in removing the plaintiff's legal status unstable danger. In addition, there are separate appeals procedures against the competent administrative agency regarding the disposition of automobile tax and fine for negligence. Even if this court accepted the plaintiff's claim for confirmation, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not affect the plaintiff's claim for confirmation only between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, the obligation to pay taxes, public charges and fine imposed on the plaintiff is not transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant or the plaintiff's obligation to pay such taxes, public charges and fine is extinguished

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit in this case cannot be deemed an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal instability, and it is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Determination as to the claim for the acquisition of the procedure for the registration of automobile ownership transfer

(a) In a case where the transferee of the vehicle does not transfer the registered title while the transferee received the vehicle from the transferor, the transferor may seek against the transferee the procedure for taking over the ownership transfer registration;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da24361 Decided March 13, 2014, etc.)

B. As to the instant motor vehicle, the name of the Plaintiff on March 11, 2011.

참조판례

-대법원 2014. 3. 13. 선고 2012다24361 판결

유사 판례

-청주지방법원충주지원 2015.08.20 2015가단2389

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.05.08 2014가단223727

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.08.19 2015가단4139

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2017.03.28 2016가단9795

-창원지방법원 2017.04.20 2016가단8346