(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.05.03 2017가단21738

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) 부산지방법원 2018.05.03 2017가단21738

자동차소유권이전등록

Text

1. On July 31, 2017, the Defendant terminated the consignment management contract with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(1) On May 1, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment management contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, which entrusts the name of the automobile indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobile”) and operated the said automobile.

d. The Plaintiff, as the service of the duplicate of the instant complaint, declared that the said contract is terminated, and the duplicate was served on the Defendant on July 31, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, each entry of Eul evidence No. 1, facts with this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The instant contract is a mixed contract with the elements of the title trust and the delegation, and at any time, the Plaintiff, who is a delegating and is in the position of the title truster, may terminate the said contract.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da29479 Decided November 11, 1997, the instant contract was lawfully terminated upon delivery to the Defendant on July 31, 2017, wherein the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract was stated.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on July 31, 2017 with respect to the instant motor vehicle by restoring to its original state following the termination of the contract, barring any special circumstance.

B. The defendant asserts that the contract of this case can be terminated only when special cases concerning permission of trucking transport business are applied pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Addenda of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 7100, Jan. 20, 2004).

However, there is no reason to view that the instant contract, which entrusts the name of a motor vehicle, can be terminated only when the special exception to the permission of trucking transport business is applied.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

참조조문

-화물자동차 운수사업법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.01.16 2017가단220033

-인천지방법원 2019.04.02 2018가단20605

-의정부지방법원 2017.04.26 2016가단126494

-울산지방법원 2015.09.23 2014나8486

-서울행정법원 2017.08.18 2017구합1100