beta
Text
1. The defendant is based on the sale on March 6, 200 as to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 6, 200, with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”), a sales contract with the Plaintiff, the transferee, and the Defendant’s C, the sales price of KRW 3.65 million was prepared.
Around that time, the Plaintiff received KRW 200,000 from the Defendant as the down payment and delivered the instant automobile.
B. Since then, the Defendant came to know that the seizure amount of the instant vehicle reaches 57 million won, but D, who is the Defendant’s partner, failed to return the instant vehicle to E, and received a letter of waiver from the Plaintiff.
C. On the other hand, on October 15, 2001, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant, without paying the purchase price, content-certified mail requesting the settlement of fines for negligence, etc. and the collection of automobiles or the takeover of transfer registration procedures, on the following grounds:
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 11 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading
2. In the investigation process following the Plaintiff’s complaint, the fact that D purchased and delivered the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff is its partner and C’s representative, and that the Defendant agreed to purchase the instant vehicle and made a statement that it was written out by the Plaintiff that it was written out of the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the sales contract was concluded on March 6, 200, even if the documents for the registration of transfer of ownership were not received or seized, the Defendant acquired the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff on March 6, 200, and therefore, the Defendant is obligated to accept from the Plaintiff the transfer of ownership registration procedure for the instant vehicle on March 6, 200.
In regard to this, the defendant confirmed the seizure of the purchase price and had no intention to purchase to the plaintiff.