(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.10 2016가단7477

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) 대구지방법원 2016.11.10 2016가단7477

자동차소유권이전등록절차인수청구

Text

1. The defendant is based on the acquisition by transfer on September 23, 2013 of the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. A person who takes over an automobile registered as to the request of the plaintiff shall make an application for the registration of transfer of ownership of the automobile to the Mayor/Do governor, and where the transferee of the automobile fails to make an application for the registration of transfer, the owner recorded in the

(Article 12, Section 4, Section 1 of the Automobile Management Act). In addition, a person registered as an owner in the motor vehicle register may seek the acquisition of the transfer registration procedure against not only the person who has directly acquired the motor vehicle from him but also the person who has again acquired or transferred it from him.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da11679 Decided August 23, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da11679, Aug. 23, 2012). According to the result of the fact-finding with respect to the Insurance Development Institute, the Defendant can recognize the fact that the Defendant subscribed to the mandatory insurance of motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from Sept. 23, 2013 to May 6, 2015. Since the Defendant voluntarily submitted documents related to the transfer and acquisition of motor vehicles, such as a letter, cash car certificate, power of attorney, vehicle abandonment note, vehicle transfer and takeover agreement note, etc., and even if the Defendant

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure based on the transfer of ownership from the plaintiff recorded in the register as owner on September 23, 2013 (the plaintiff claimed the transfer of the motor vehicle on February 19, 2003, but there is no evidence that the plaintiff acquired the motor vehicle to the defendant at that time, and therefore, the date of purchase of the motor vehicle is recognized as the transfer date).

2. The defendant's argument that the defendant asserted that the vehicle in the attached list was leased from C to use it for a period of one year, and only returned to D as soon as he/she did not acquire the vehicle.

However, it is recognized that D, etc. certificates have been prepared directly by D.

참조조문

-자동차관리법 제12조 제4항

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.02.23 2015가단37808

-수원지방법원 2016.02.25 2015가단53700

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.02.02 2015가단19241

-수원지방법원 2016.02.25 2015가단41783

-창원지방법원거창지원 2015.11.03 2015가단941