logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.06.04 2014가단13505
자동차소유권이전등록절차인수
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On September 7, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”) from C on the condition that C is entirely responsible for installment payments, taxes, etc., and around September 27, 2007, the instant motor vehicle was transferred from C to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, since the Defendant did not transfer the registered name and thus imposes various taxes and traffic penalties on the Plaintiff in relation to the operation of the instant vehicle, the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure from the Plaintiff on September 27, 2007 due to the transfer agreement.

2. According to the overall purport of the statement and argument as to No. 3, the Defendant’s automobile insurance purchased from September 27, 2007 to September 27, 2009, and the fact that the Defendant operated the instant automobile.

However, in order for the Plaintiff to file a claim against the Defendant for the acquisition of the transfer registration procedure for the instant motor vehicle, it should be presumed that a lawful transfer and acquisition contract was concluded directly between the Plaintiff or the Defendant with respect to the instant motor vehicle, or that there was an agreement between the intermediate parties in the process of distribution from the Plaintiff or C to the Defendant regarding the transfer registration for the transfer of ownership. There is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Rather, the following circumstances, i.e., the statement of No. 3 and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the name lending was made from the time of the purchase of the instant vehicle, and the Plaintiff, the name holder, due to C’s operation of the instant vehicle, was entirely unaware of its operation relationship or electric distribution, ② the Defendant asserted that, without knowledge of C, he lent money to D, he lent money to a social shipr, and temporarily operated the instant vehicle under the security clause, and that he returned it to D around October 208, 208.

arrow