beta
Text
1. The Defendant is based on the transfer of an automobile indicated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff on November 10, 201.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 2, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration with respect to the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).
B. On October 31, 2010, the Plaintiff requested the trading of the instant motor vehicle to a person who was unaware of his name, and issued documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership.
C. On November 10, 201, the Defendant acquired the instant automobile from a person with no personal knowledge, and concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
(a) A person who takes over a motor vehicle registered as to the cause of claim shall file an application with the Mayor/Do Governor for the registration of transfer of the ownership of the motor vehicle, and where the transferee of the motor vehicle fails to file an application for the registration of transfer, the owner recorded in the register may file an application for the registration of transfer on behalf of the transferee (Article 12(1) and (4) of the Automobile Management Act) and a person recorded in the register of motor vehicle as an owner may seek the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership from not only the person directly taking over the motor vehicle
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da11679 Decided August 23, 2012). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant automobile, on or around November 10, 201.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the transferor, after the acquisition of the instant vehicle, did not transfer documents related to the transfer of ownership, so it is doubtful that the transferor was not a normal vehicle, and that the transferee rescinded the transfer contract around December 6, 201.
According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 to 7, the defendant concluded.