logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.09.27 2019가단5820
과태료납부절차이행 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On October 18, 2001, the plaintiff purchased the vehicle by Cchip around October 18, 2001, and sold the vehicle to the defendant and delivered the vehicle to the defendant under the condition that he takes over the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the above vehicle. However, the defendant failed to comply with the procedure for

The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the registration of transfer of ownership against the above vehicle due to sale and purchase as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014Kadan43568, and the above judgment became final and conclusive upon receiving a favorable judgment from the above court.

It is impossible to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the above final judgment because the Defendant’s fine for negligence, penalty, etc. imposed during the above vehicle operation period is not paid. Thus, the Defendant’s request for implementation of the procedure for payment of administrative fines, such as the written claim.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the administrative fine and penalty, etc. were incurred after the Plaintiff lost the right to control the operation of the instant motor vehicle, even though the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment procedure, such as the administrative fine, against the State, local governments, etc. imposing the said administrative fine, etc. (other than disputing the legality of the imposition of the administrative fine, etc., or claiming the Plaintiff’s subrogation payment against the Defendant after paying the administrative fine, etc. imposed in the Plaintiff’s future), is merely effective between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff does not lose its obligation to pay public charges, etc. already imposed on the Plaintiff because it does not affect the administrative agency imposing the

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow