(영문) 대전고등법원(청주) 2015.12.15 2015나190

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전고등법원(청주) 2015.12.15 2015나190

자동차소유권이전등록말소 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Each of the instant vehicles owned by the Plaintiff. The representative director of Defendant B, forged a transfer certificate, a corporate seal imprint certificate, etc., which was possessed by the Plaintiff for the purpose of supporting the Plaintiff’s accounting, and completed each of the instant vehicles on March 26, 2013 by using the forged certificate, a mortgage creation contract, etc. (the date and time of specific transfer registration, etc. are as stated in the purport of the claim; hereinafter the same shall apply), and completed the registration of creation of mortgage on vehicles listed in the separate sheet (8) to Defendant C on March 26, 2013.

B. Therefore, each registration of transfer of this case and each registration of creation of mortgage of this case are null and void, and each registration of transfer of ownership and all of the registration of creation of mortgage in the name of the remaining Defendants, which were based on each registration of transfer of this case null and void.

C. The Defendants, with respect to each of the instant vehicles, perform the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer or the cancellation of the registration of mortgage creation in their names, and furthermore, the remaining Defendants except Defendant Hyundai Frans and C have the duty to deliver the relevant vehicle, the final ownership transfer registration in their names, to the Plaintiff.

2. Therefore, each registration of transfer of this case and the registration of mortgage of this case are not consistent with Gap's 21, 22, 59, 67, and 82 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply) as it is difficult to believe that Gap's 2, 4, 63 through 10, 31 through 33, 46, 49, 52, 57, 58, 64, 65, 76 through 79, 83, and 84, each of the statements in Gap's 2, 4, 63 through 29, 31 through 33, 46, 49, 52, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65, 76 through 79, 83, and 84, and there is no other evidence to find it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion needs to be examined.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2015.02.05 2014가합69

-대구지방법원안동지원 2019.04.17 2018가단2981

-의정부지방법원 2016.10.06 2016가단15020

-서울북부지방법원 2017.07.20 2016가단138166

-수원지방법원 2017.12.21 2017나65111