logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.12.19 2016가단247998
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 100,000 and KRW 40,000,00 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 100,000 and KRW 60,000 from July 21, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant C is the Director of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul E, and Defendant B was employed as the above employee from August 2012 to June 2015.

On September 2014, Defendant B requested Defendant C, the president of Korea Institute, to lend the name of automobile loan and the name of automobile registration.

B. Defendant C, in the manner of deducting monthly installments from the original salary that B would have received, was the settlement key, and accepted the request for name lending.

Defendant B borrowed KRW 75 million from Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. with Defendant C as a loan obligor, purchased F HusH2 used vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with the said money, etc., and completed the ownership transfer registration under Defendant C’s name on September 16, 2014, while establishing a collateral security right in the future for the said vehicle.

C. On May 20, 2015, Defendant B, while driving and using the instant vehicle, borrowed KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff on May 20, 2015 and delivered the said vehicle to the Plaintiff as collateral for transfer. At the time, Defendant B issued a motor vehicle registration certificate, a certificate of vehicle abandonment and a letter of delegation of vehicle disposal, a certificate of vehicle use approval/a certificate of vehicle abandonment (hereinafter collectively referred to as “certificate of vehicle abandonment, etc.”).

The above vehicle waiver note, etc. issued to the Plaintiff is forged by Defendant B, etc.

On the other hand, around June 2015, Defendant B withdrawn from Defendant C’s above Council member, and Defendant B did not take over the name of the instant case and the owner of the vehicle, including the loan borrowed from Hyundai Capital Capital, after retirement.

Accordingly, Defendant C had identified the location of the instant vehicle with Defendant D, and had the instant vehicle arbitrarily driven around April 25, 2016, which was occupied by the Plaintiff after being transferred as a security for the transfer of loan obligations.

[Grounds for recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, 15, 16, 16.

arrow