2019Na21056 Delivery of Ccorporeal Movables

A

Law Firm Jeong-dong, Attorney Min Il-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

C

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Kadan96613 Decided July 10, 2019

October 22, 2019

January 17, 2020

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall deliver the vehicle listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s new argument in the trial room, since it is identical to the part against the Defendant in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The agreement between the Plaintiff and the joint Defendant B of the first instance trial on the instant motor vehicle is not a title trust, but rather, the Plaintiff purchased the instant motor vehicle, paid the price thereof through an installment contract with the Nonparty Company, and made B free use of the instant motor vehicle. However, after three months, the agreement was made to re-purchase the instant motor vehicle from the Plaintiff by succeeding to the said installment contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff is the owner who actually bears the sales price of the instant motor vehicle and is entitled to manage and dispose of the instant motor vehicle, while the Defendant is merely the possessor who has no title to lease the instant motor vehicle from the non-exclusively unused B. Thus, the Defendant must deliver the instant motor vehicle to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

In this case, it may be said that the Plaintiff was liable for the purchase price of the instant vehicle since it obtained a loan from the non-party company in the name of the Plaintiff and paid the purchase price of the instant vehicle with the loan. However, since the Plaintiff received the instant vehicle from the non-party company, and then delivered it to the non-party B, and thereafter, the Defendant continuously occupied and used the instant vehicle by leasing the instant vehicle to the non-party, since the contract was concluded on the instant vehicle, it was not because the Plaintiff did not have any volume of managing and controlling the instant vehicle since the contract was concluded on the instant vehicle. This was not because the Plaintiff did not have taken place without permission, but it was in accordance with the agreement between the Plaintiff and the non-party. ② The Plaintiff was liable for the installment payment of the instant vehicle after the said contract was made, but it was inevitable to deem the Plaintiff to not transfer the name of the instant vehicle according to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the non-party, rather than paying the installment payment of the instant vehicle as the owner of the instant vehicle. ③ In light of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the first instance judgment on the instant vehicle.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and B for re-sale of the instant automobile, not title trust, is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges O Byung-hee

Judges Jeong Il-ju

Judges Kim Jin-young

A person shall be appointed.