beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s ground for termination of title trust on July 30, 2015 with respect to each construction machinery listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The fact of recognition (1) Nonparty A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) purchased each of the construction machinery listed in the separate sheet from Hyundai Heavy Industries (hereinafter “each of the construction machinery of this case”) on May 2006, and registered the Defendant as its owner, respectively.
(2) On August 5, 2013, Nonparty Company was declared bankrupt by the Daegu District Court 2013Hahap16, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee for Nonparty Company on the same day.
(3) On July 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant that the title trust agreement with the Defendant for each of the instant construction machinery was terminated on the service date of the duplicate of the instant complaint, and the Defendant received the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint on July 30, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, facts with merit in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on July 30, 2015 with respect to each construction machinery listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. From November 8, 2005, D and E jointly, were the representative director of the non-party company, and forged F’s agreement on credit sales claims, electronic loan loans, tax invoices, etc. operated by the Defendant, thereby borrowing KRW 515,00,000 from the National Bank of Korea to April 29, 2009 in the name of F, Co., Ltd. from November 6, 2008 to April 29, 2009. Accordingly, F Co., Ltd. was in a default situation.
D d April 2009, 199, or
4. Around 30.30. Around the foregoing illegal loan, the ownership of each of the construction machinery of this case was transferred to the Defendant, the actual victim, instead of paying damages.
B. The evidence that corresponds to the Defendant’s assertion is admissible.