2018Jaly 96613 Ccorporeal movables delivery

A

Law Firm Jeong-dong, Attorneys White-kick et al.

1. B

2. C

June 19, 2019

July 10, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendants deliver the motor vehicle indicated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 18, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle from D to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) with a conditional loan from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) for 48 months on the same day, and transferred the instant vehicle to D with a payment for the purchase price of KRW 39 million (hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan”). In response to Defendant B’s request, the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle from D on May 18, 2018 and completed the ownership transfer registration on May 21, 2018, and transferred the instant vehicle acquired from D with a payment for the purchase price of KRW 39 million (hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan”).

B. On July 11, 2018, Defendant B leased the instant automobile to Defendant C with a deposit of KRW 10 million, the period of KRW 3-6 months (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and Defendant B did not refund KRW 10 million up to now, and Defendant C continued to occupy the instant automobile.

C. Defendant B, unlike the initial promise, did not bear the obligation of the instant loan and did not take over the ownership transfer registration of the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff, bears the tax or fine for negligence imposed on the instant vehicle as well as the repayment of the instant loan.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff repaid the instant loan obligation and bears the tax and administrative fine imposed on the instant automobile, the actual owner of the instant automobile is the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff is deemed the trustee of title trust, Defendant B, who is the nominal owner of the instant automobile, is not entitled to dispose of the instant automobile. Therefore, the instant lease agreement becomes null and void, and Defendant C is obliged to deliver the instant automobile to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) The facts as seen earlier or the Plaintiff’s assertion itself clearly revealed that the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration of the instant automobile according to the title trust agreement with Defendant B, and as a result, it is reasonable to impose taxes and fines on the instant automobile on the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be the ground that the Plaintiff is the actual owner of the instant automobile.

2) Even if the title trustee completed the registration of ownership transfer of a motor vehicle under a motor vehicle title trust agreement, the title truster holds the ownership of the motor vehicle and manages and profits therefrom. Even if the title trustee acquired the ownership of the motor vehicle externally, his/her ownership is restricted in relation to the title truster, and the title truster has the right to possess the motor vehicle and may oppose the claim for the return of the property owned by the title trustee. In cases where the title truster had a third party possess the motor vehicle under a title trust through sale or lease, they may oppose the claim for the return of the property owned by the title trustee. The Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11771 Decided the Plaintiff’s holding of the motor vehicle under a title trust agreement differs from this case, and its legal principle is not

3) Examining the above facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, Defendant C leased the instant motor vehicle from Defendant B, the title truster of the instant motor vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff, the title trustee of the instant motor vehicle, may oppose the Plaintiff’s claim for extradition of the instant motor vehicle. The Plaintiff’s assertion against Defendant C cannot be accepted.

3. Claim against the defendant B

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1

The Plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with Defendant B upon completing the ownership transfer registration of the instant vehicle on condition that Defendant B succeeds to the obligation of the instant loan after three months from the date of the Plaintiff’s succession. Defendant B did not succeed to the obligation of the instant loan even after three months from the date on which the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant vehicle. As such, the instant automobile was confirmed as owned by the Plaintiff, Defendant B was obligated to deliver the instant automobile to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

In the event that the Plaintiff did not succeed to the obligation of the instant loan after three months from the time when the Plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with Defendant B on the instant automobile, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff agreed to acquire the ownership of the instant automobile.2) In the event that the Plaintiff terminates the title trust agreement on the ground that Defendant B did not take over the obligation of the instant loan, the Plaintiff is obligated to complete the ownership transfer registration of the instant automobile to Defendant B, and there is no right to seek the delivery of the instant automobile.3) The Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant B cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

Judges Kang Jong-ok

Indication of Automobile

1. Registration number of automobiles:

2. Name: A65 TD;

3. Date of initial registration: February 27, 2015;

4. Smoke: 2015.

5.Engine type: CGI,

6. Original management number: 024-2-0125-0015-1214

7. The chassis number:

8. Place of use: a working-dong district in the ancient city.

9. Final owner:

1) As the Plaintiff’s petition’s source of claim is unclear, this Court sought an explanation to the Plaintiff’s agent on the first day of pleading, and the Plaintiff’s agent made an oral assertion on the second day of pleading.

2) Of the claim 4 of the complaint, the part that "if the plaintiff did not pay to the defendant B, he would bring about the instant vehicle." It is difficult to agree that the defendant B would not take over the instant loan obligation, and that the plaintiff agreed to transfer the instant vehicle to the plaintiff as the defendant B did not take over the instant loan obligation.

3) The disadvantage that the Plaintiff received as the nominal owner of the instant vehicle or the obligor of the instant loan is a matter of obligation to receive monetary compensation from the Defendant B, the title truster.