(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.10.20 2019가단276233

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) 서울남부지방법원 2020.10.20 2019가단276233

소유권이전등록

Text

The defendant is limited to the sale on July 16, 2013 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the attached list from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of installment financing business, facility leasing business, etc.

B. On July 16, 2009, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the following terms: (a) KRW 57,00,000, deposit KRW 14,344,00, monthly lease fee of KRW 1,540,490, annual overdue interest rate of KRW 24,490, annual overdue interest rate of KRW 48 months (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to acquire the ownership of the instant automobile upon the expiration of the lease term at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement.

The lease contract of this case was terminated on July 15, 2013 as the expiration date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the transaction took effect on July 16, 2013, which is the day following the date on which the lease contract of this case ends.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant motor vehicle from the Plaintiff on July 16, 2013.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and the summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) did not exercise any right for more than ten years after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s right to claim for the acquisition of the ownership transfer registration procedure regarding the instant automobile has expired after the completion of prescription. 2) The Plaintiff’s claim for the performance of the transfer transfer registration procedure against the assignee regarding the transferor’s obligation to perform the transfer transfer registration procedure. As such, the claim for the performance of the transfer transfer registration procedure against the transferor is sought to the assignee for the receipt of the performance provision. Thus, the claim for the performance of the transfer transfer registration procedure against the transferor was not made even if the transferor continued to perform the registration procedure

유사 판례

-대법원 2008.4.24.선고 2006다11920 판결

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.04.11 2019가단1724

-서울서부지방법원 2017.05.31 2016가단8353

-수원지방법원 2016.06.15 2015나36096

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.15 2015나18397