logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.11.19 2019가단321135
자동차인도 등 청구의 소
Text

The Defendant, as the Plaintiff

(a) deliver a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet;

B. 2,944,900 won and this shall be September 2020.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on setting deposit money of KRW 31,980,00, lease fee of KRW 2,997,630, and lease period of KRW 48 months from Nonparty Company.

After that, the lease term of the above lease was changed to 60 months.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendant is operating the instant vehicle without obtaining permission from the Plaintiff or the Nonparty company from March 2016 to the date of closing the argument in this case.

C. Meanwhile, while the Defendant’s operation of the instant vehicle, an administrative fine of KRW 2,94,90 was imposed on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid the said administrative fine to the Nonparty Company according to the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff, who is entitled to use and profit from the instant motor vehicle under the instant lease agreement, on behalf of the non-party company, can seek the delivery of the instant motor vehicle, the possession and use of the instant motor vehicle by the Defendant, and the return of unjust enrichment from the Defendant, barring any special circumstance.

B. On the part of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted as follows, and this is examined. A) Since the Plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with D with D and entered into the instant lease agreement as a title trustee, the Plaintiff’s right to use and dispose of the instant motor vehicle is substantially limited to D.

However, the defendant has the right to possess and use the motor vehicle of this case since it is delivered the motor vehicle of this case as security against the sales proceeds claim.

B. It is not so.

arrow