(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.04.28 2016나14362

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) 인천지방법원 2017.04.28 2016나14362

자동차인도등

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. Determination on requests for delivery of motor vehicles

A. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant vehicle, C entered into an exchange contract with the Defendant without obtaining the power of representation from the Plaintiff on June 10, 2015 (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”), and that the Defendant occupied the instant vehicle.

According to the above facts of recognition, C’s conclusion of the instant exchange contract with the Defendant is null and void as an unauthorized representation.

Therefore, since the defendant occupies the automobile of this case without legitimate authority, the owner is obligated to deliver the automobile of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserts that there was a justifiable reason to believe that C had the right of representation to conclude the instant exchange contract, since C was operating the instant automobile.

An expression agent beyond the authority applies to a case where a person with the authority of representation has committed an act beyond the authority, and any act by a person without the authority of representation is not applicable to an act by a person (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da383, Sept. 19, 1963). There is no evidence that C, at the time of entering into the instant exchange contract, was granted the basic authority of the Plaintiff with respect to the instant automobile.

Even if C was granted the basic right of representation, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not receive documents, such as the vehicle registration certificate, the Plaintiff’s power of attorney, and the certificate of personal seal impression, even if it did not know at all with the Plaintiff or C, and did not take measures, such as confirming the Plaintiff’s intent to conclude the instant exchange contract, it is difficult to deem that C had a justifiable reason to believe that C had the right to conclude the instant exchange contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, and otherwise recognized it

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.09.07 2016가단103417

-대전지방법원 2014.10.16 2013나19050

-대법원 2015.9.15.선고 2015다218655 판결

-수원지방법원 2017.05.23 2016나18125

-창원지방법원 2015.05.14 2014나31534