logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.09.15 2016가단27487
손해배상
Text

1. The defendant,

A. The Plaintiff’s KRW 22,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 9, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in the motor vehicle transaction business under the trade name of “C”.

B. On March 16, 2016, D, an employee of the Plaintiff, drafted a motor vehicle transfer certificate (for the motor vehicle dealer transaction, hereinafter “the instant contract”, and hereinafter “the instant contract”). On March 16, 2016, D’s name was written in the transferor column of the said transfer certificate, and D’s personal seal was affixed in the motor vehicle dealer column including the Plaintiff’s trade name and name.

C. D paid KRW 22,00,000 to the Defendant on March 16, 2016, and received the documents for the ownership transfer registration of the instant vehicle from the Defendant.

D shall prepare a certificate of motor vehicle transfer (for motor vehicle dealer transaction) in which the transferor is the defendant, transferee and the motor vehicle dealer as each plaintiff, and completed the transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff on March 16, 2016.

E. On March 24, 2016, March 30, 2016, and April 29, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Defendant a certificate of content to the effect that the Plaintiff did not deliver the instant automobile to D or the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff sent the certificate of content to the Defendant seeking delivery of the instant automobile, and reached that time.

【In the absence of dispute, the Defendant 3 asserts that the Defendant’s seal affixed to the transferor’s column of No. 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and No. 3 (automobile Transfer Certificate) was forged, not by the Defendant’s seal, but by the Defendant’s seal. According to the evidence No. 5, it is recognized that D voluntarily prepared the transferor’s column. Thus, the evidence No. 3 cannot be used as evidence for the conclusion of a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant;

5 Entry of evidence, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion by the parties concerned is the sales contract of this case.

arrow