Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs

In the case of automobiles, it is prohibited from establishing a pledge right at will other than establishing a mortgage under the Automobile Mortgage Act in order to make profits from the use of the automobiles by the owner, and even if the automobile was delivered to the effect that the pledge right is established, it is invalid in accordance with the principle

Article 185 of the Civil Code, Article 7 of the Automobile Mortgage Act

Dried ship

Jung-jin-gu

1. The defendant delivers the vehicle listed in the attached list to the plaintiff, and pays 90,000 won to the plaintiff.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The automobiles listed in the separate sheet are owned by the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 3,040,000 in total from Nonparty Kim Young-sik over several occasions, and around November 15, 1993, delivered the motor vehicle and its registration certificate as a collateral for the above obligation to Nonparty Kim Young-sik.

C. At the end of 1993, the above Kim Young-sik again delivered the above vehicle and its registration certificate to the defendant as a security against the above non-party's debt amounting to 5,00,000,000.

D. After that, the Defendant, while driving the above vehicle, committed a violation of parking regulations on three occasions, thereby imposing an administrative fine of KRW 90,000 on the Plaintiff.

2. Grounds for recognition;

Gap evidence 1 (Register of Automobile), Gap evidence 3 (Evidence of Suspension of Prosecution due to the unknown whereabouts), Gap evidence 4 (President), Gap evidence 5-1 through 3 (Notice of Payment of Fine for Negligence), and the purport prior to pleadings.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

With respect to the plaintiff's taking over the above automobile based on ownership, the defendant argued that the above automobile was delivered to the non-party Kim Young-sik as collateral, and thus it cannot be delivered to the defendant. Thus, in the case of the automobile, the defendant is prohibited from arbitrarily establishing a pledge other than the mortgage under the Automobile Mortgage Act in order to make the owner use and profit-making (Article 7 of the Automobile Mortgage Act). Even if the above non-party delivered the automobile to the purport that the establishment of a pledge is made by the automobile, it is contrary to the above provisions, and is null and void in the principle of legal principle of real rights as it is contrary to the above provisions, and thus, the lien does not occur as the above claim is not created, and there is no assertion or proof that the defendant has a legitimate right to possess the above

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above vehicle to the plaintiff, and pay 90,000 won to the plaintiff for damages caused by the defendant's illegal parking while using the above vehicle, which is subject to the disposition of a fine for negligence. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition (attached Form omitted).

Provisional rules of judges