(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.02.12 2014가단125357

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) 대구지방법원 2015.02.12 2014가단125357

유체동산인도

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver the motor vehicle recorded in the attached registration certificate to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 18, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with B on the instant motor vehicle (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and delivered the instant motor vehicle to B, as the owner of the motor vehicle indicated in the attached registration certificate (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).

B. According to the instant lease contract, the Plaintiff may cancel the lease agreement and recover the instant automobile in the event that the Plaintiff did not pay the agreed rent, and accordingly, the Plaintiff rescinded the instant lease agreement.

C. On September 5, 2013, the Defendant lent KRW 23 million to B, and occupied the instant vehicle by acquiring it as a security.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant who possesses the instant vehicle has the duty to deliver it to the plaintiff who is the owner.

3. As to the defendant's argument, the defendant asserts that there is no obligation to deliver it to the plaintiff, since he paid KRW 23 million to B, and received possession right from B, and he has legitimate right to possess it.

The defendant lent 23 million won to B on September 5, 2013 and occupied the motor vehicle of this case as security. The above facts are as follows.

However, an automobile can only be the object of a mortgage pursuant to Articles 3 and 9 of the Act on Mortgage on Motor Vehicles and other Specific Movables, and cannot be the object of a pledge, which is a real right to secure possession for the purpose of securing credit. Thus, the agreement between the defendant and the defendant who is the creditor of the automobile in this case to secure loan obligations by having the defendant occupying the automobile in this case shall be null and void, and as long as the defendant did not complete the transfer of ownership as to the automobile in

참조조문

-자동차 등 특정동산 저당법

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.12.07 2017가단202156

-창원지방법원마산지원 2014.12.19 2014가단12433

-서울남부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016가단206967

-서울서부지방법원 2015.08.13 2015고단607

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.20 2017가단5183275