(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.31 2016가단108043

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.31 2016가단108043

자동차소유권이전절차 이행등록

Text

1. The defendant is due to the termination of the lease agreement on July 30, 2010 on the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 13, 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a car lease agreement with the acquisition cost of KRW 83,000,000, monthly lease period of KRW 44 months, and monthly lease cost of KRW 1,604,486 with respect to the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to proceed with the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name on the instant automobile when the lease contract term expires.

C. However, even after the expiration of the above contract period on July 30, 2010, the Defendant did not transfer the name of the Defendant for the instant automobile, and accordingly, the Plaintiff paid 5,806,825 won, including automobile tax and penalty, etc. on the instant automobile.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer of ownership registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Plaintiff on July 30, 2010, and the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 25, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the day when the duplicate of the application for modification of the purport of the claim was served on the Defendant as of February 20, 2017, from February 25, 2017 to the day of full payment.

B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff did not cooperate in the procedure for the registration of transfer of the motor vehicle of this case and caused the damage to the defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.13 2015가단209369

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.10 2019가단5048888

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.19 2016가단64037

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.25 2015가단209383

-수원지방법원 2016.06.28 2015가단127267