(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.05.27 2019가단8766

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) 전주지방법원 2020.05.27 2019가단8766

자동차소유권이전등록절차이행

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff, including the conclusion of the car siren contract between the original and the Defendant, entered into a siren agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the instant automobile be acquired after the expiration of the contract, with the terms of KRW 26,740,00, the contract period from April 28, 2014 to April 27, 2017, and the rent of KRW 553,80,00, etc.

(hereinafter “instant contract” and “the instant contract.” The “return of acceptance after the termination of the contract” and “predetermined residual value” of the instant contract are not indicated or indicated. The “predetermined value” of the written confirmation of contract facts sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is indicated as KRW 12,034,00,000, which is 45% of the acquisition cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not state the estimated residual value in the contract when concluding the contract of this case on the condition of acceptance after the expiration of the contract, and thus, the plaintiff does not pay the acquisition price to the defendant while taking over the vehicle after the expiration of the contract. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim for acquisition price against the plaintiff is without merit, regardless of whether the defendant's claim for acquisition

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not implement the acquisition procedure after the expiration of the automobile contract of this case.

B. As alleged by the plaintiff, the presumption remaining value of the contract of this case was not stated in the contract of this case as alleged above. However, according to the above, there was no indication in the "return after the termination of the contract" column of the contract of this case, and there was no remaining value in the letter of confirmation of the contract of this case sent by the defendant to the plaintiff.

In addition, in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the contract of this case as a whole.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.28 2015나3968

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.04 2018가단5121564

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.06.25 2013가합8762

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.10 2016가합535512

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.06 2015가합550637