logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2013.3.28.선고 2012나6448 판결
자동차소유권이전등록절차인수
Cases

2012Na6448 Acceptance of the Procedure for the Registration of Transfer of Ownership of Automobiles

Plaintiff and Appellant

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant, Appellant

A person shall be appointed.

The first instance judgment

Ulsan District Court Decision 2012Ra8603 Decided November 9, 2012

Conclusion of Pleadings

March 8, 2013

Imposition of Judgment

March 28, 2013

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant takes over the transfer registration procedure from the plaintiff on February 2, 2005 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

The plaintiff is entitled to take over the transfer registration procedure based on "transfer on February 10, 2005," but it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff makes the claim of this case based on "sale on February 2, 2005" as the cause of transfer registration in light of the overall purport of the claim.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 8, 2001, the Plaintiff completed the new registration of ownership by virtue of the ownership registration on the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).

B. On February 2, 2005, the Plaintiff requested a third party to sell the instant vehicle, and delivered the instant vehicle to the firstman along with the document body necessary for the record of the transfer, etc.

C. From February 16, 2005 to February 16, 2006, the Defendant entered into an automobile insurance contract with C Co., Ltd. with the total insurance premium of KRW 638,520,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,

【Ground for Recognition】 Unstrifed Facts, Gap 1, 2, and Eul 2, the entry or part of the evidence, and the first instance court

As a result of inquiry into the head of Ulsan Nam-gu, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The argument and judgment of the parties

A. Summary of the argument

(1) The plaintiff

The Defendant, on February 2, 2005, received a request for sale from a third party who received a request from the Plaintiff, received the instant vehicle from the said third party, or acquired it by transfer from another person who is not the said third party, sought the acquisition of the transfer registration procedure.

(2) Defendant

The defendant only entered into an automobile insurance contract concerning the instant automobile upon the request of the head of Kim-Ban who may well know the name he had worked at the construction site, such as the defendant, and the defendant did not have the number or operation of the instant automobile.

B. Determination

(1) The Automobile Management Act provides that a person who takes over a registered automobile shall make an application for the registration of transfer of automobile ownership (hereinafter referred to as “registration of transfer”) to a Mayor/Do governor under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and that a transferee of an automobile shall make the registration of transfer under paragraph (1) of this Article in his own name before the transfer (Article 12(3)); and that where a transferee of an automobile fails to make an application for the registration of transfer under paragraph (1) of this Article, a transferor (referring to the owner entered in the register at the time of the application for the registration of transfer) may make an application in lieu of the transferee (Article 12(4)) under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (Article 12(4)).

In light of the purport of the above provision, the transferee of a motor vehicle is obliged to take over the procedure of the pre-registration from the person registered as the owner in the motor vehicle register, regardless of who has acquired the motor vehicle from the person, who is currently occupying and operating the motor vehicle, and whether the acquired motor vehicle is sold again to a third party

(2) Therefore, we examine whether the Defendant acquired the instant motor vehicle.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the defendant asserted that the automobile insurance contract was merely concluded at the request of the Kim-Ban, but the defendant directly concluded the automobile insurance contract with the policyholder and the insured as the insurance period from February 16, 2005 to February 16, 2006, and the defendant did not specify the identity of the Kim-Ban at all, and did not explain the reasons for the insured as the defendant, and even after the expiration of the above first insurance period, the automatic automobile insurance contract with the defendant as the insured was continuously operated or controlled by the defendant on two occasions, and it appears that the defendant continued to run or controlled the automobile of this case on two occasions after the expiration of the above first insurance period, not only concluded the insurance contract on the automobile of this case at the request of the leader, but also concluded the automobile of this case with the third party or the other party to whom the plaintiff was requested to sell the automobile of this case from the plaintiff.

It is reasonable to see that the instant motor vehicle was acquired by transfer. Even if the Plaintiff actually used the instant motor vehicle, it is difficult to see that it differs solely due to the circumstance of the entry or part of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 2.

(3) As the Defendant constitutes a transferee, the Defendant is not entitled to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Plaintiff registered as the owner in the register of automobiles on February 2, 2005.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it has different conclusions, so the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and it is revoked, and the defendant is ordered to accept the transfer registration procedure and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Doing of the presiding judge

Judges Dok-hee

Judges Park Young-young

Site of separate sheet

- Attachment omitted

arrow