logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.12.04 2018가단7162
자동차소유권이전등록절차이행
Text

1. The Defendant’s ground for termination of title trust on July 16, 2018 is limited to the Plaintiff’s motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Examining the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers) of the judgment on the cause of the claim in addition to the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff entered into a sales contract with B on February 26, 2015 to purchase a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the plaintiff on February 27, 2015. The plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with the defendant who was employed by the plaintiff on June 1, 2015 on the instant motor vehicle and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 3, 2015, and the plaintiff terminated the said title trust agreement as a duplicate of the written complaint of the instant case.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on July 16, 2018, which was the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, on the motor vehicle stated in the attached Form, to the plaintiff.

2. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the instant motor vehicle: (a) alleged that the Defendant should pay or cancel the insurance premium of KRW 325,490, and traffic penalty, and the seizure, etc. submitted by the Defendant; (b) however, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant paid the said insurance premium, etc.; (c) although the Defendant received the evidence No. 1 through No. 5, the Defendant failed to appear on November 13, 2018, which is the date for the first pleading and the second pleading, and each of the said evidence was not submitted, and thus, the evidence was not examined.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da15775 delivered on November 8, 1991). Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow