logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.01.16 2019나50475
구상금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant truck was transferred to an auction by the Defendant as it provided a collateral for treatment C 4.5 tons truck owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant truck”). Since the Defendant did not repay the secured obligation and thereby the Defendant was exempted from liability of KRW 20,263,285, the Defendant should pay the indemnity amount to the Plaintiff.

B. Although the Defendant’s assertion that the instant truck had been under the name of the Plaintiff, the actual owner at the time when the Defendant established a right to collateral security to purchase the truck is D, the Plaintiff cannot seek reimbursement from the Defendant.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the instant truck and registered the transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff, but on April 28, 2014, registered the transfer of ownership under the name of E-liability company (hereinafter “E”), which is a branch company. On July 2014, the Plaintiff decided to sell the instant truck and requested D to sell the said truck to a person engaged in the middle and high-class sales business.

B. D recommended the Defendant to purchase the instant truck, and the Defendant had no experience in operating trucking vehicles, and first driven a vehicle and checked the condition, etc. of the vehicle. On July 31, 2014, when D is in need of advance payment of the purchase price, D received a loan of KRW 45 million from F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and paid KRW 51 million to D.

C. Since then, the Defendant: (a) viewed the instant truck as a test run; (b) decided not to purchase the relevant truck due to a defect in the vehicle; and (c) requested D to return the sales price; (c) however, on October 15, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against D on October 15, 2014 seeking refund of the said KRW 51 million at the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court (2014Ga40895, and the said court accepted the Defendant’s assertion and accepted the Defendant’s claim, and (d) Defendant D, the Plaintiff.

arrow