Plaintiff

Defendant

December 19, 2019

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Kadan11711 Decided July 11, 2019

1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. Purport of claim

On January 31, 2009, the Defendant acquired the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) on the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

This court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and board;

A. The assertion

The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 1.5 million from the bond company as collateral for the instant vehicle, but failed to pay the borrowed money. Accordingly, the instant vehicle was transferred before transfer, such as the transfer of the instant vehicle by the bond company, and the Defendant purchased the said vehicle around January 31, 2009. However, since the Defendant did not transfer the registration title of the instant vehicle, the Plaintiff seeks acquisition of the transfer registration procedure for the instant vehicle by the Defendant on January 31, 2009.

B. Determination

1) In order for the Plaintiff to obtain the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Defendant, it should be recognized that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lawful sales contract for the instant automobile directly, or that there was an agreement among the intermediate parties in the process of distributing the instant automobile from the Plaintiff to the Defendant regarding the transfer registration for the transfer of ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da58289, Dec. 27, 2012). However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the said fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da58289, Dec. 27, 2012).

2) Furthermore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff has the right to seek the transfer registration of ownership from the provisions of Article 12 of the Automobile Management Act to the Defendant who did not have any direct contractual relationship with respect to the instant automobile.

3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

(attached Form omitted)

Judges Jeong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)