(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.05.13 2019가단10988

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) 울산지방법원 2020.05.13 2019가단10988

자동차인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet;

(b) KRW 3,618,280 and this shall apply thereto.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) are owned by the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant violated the duty of parking and stopping as shown in the attached Table while driving the instant vehicle, thereby having the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant vehicle, bear an administrative fine of KRW 2,025,280 in total.

C. In addition, the Defendant did not subscribe to mandatory insurance as stipulated in Article 5 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act with respect to the instant automobile while driving the instant automobile for himself, thereby having the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant automobile, bear an administrative fine of KRW 1,593,000 in total.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap 1, 2, 4 through 13 (including abnormal numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the claim for delivery of automobiles, the instant automobile is owned by the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant currently occupies and uses it, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant automobile to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant automobile, unless there are special circumstances.

As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that, from May 19, 2012, the instant automobile owned by the Plaintiff was provided as collateral to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was supplied total of KRW 320,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for gift certificates within 22,30,000,000,000,000 for the gift certificates, and the instant automobile was delivered to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant asserted to the effect that, with the exception of KRW 32,20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,00

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the plaintiff deceivings the defendant that the plaintiff would pay the amount to the defendant daily without any intention or ability to pay the merchandise coupon price to the defendant, and then will pay it to the defendant.

참조조문

-자동차손해배상 보장법 제5조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.10.18 2016가단11450

-서울동부지방법원 2015.06.09 2014가단13854

-인천지방법원 2016.04.06 2015가단47692

-수원지방법원 2018.09.13 2017나82932

-부산지방법원 2018.11.13 2017가단4252