logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.11.22 2017가단11567
구상금 및 자동차소유권이전등록
Text

1. The defendant,

A. Termination of an entrustment contract from the Plaintiff on June 30, 2017 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2, 2009, the Plaintiff (former Vietnam Transport Co., Ltd.) registered a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) with the Defendant in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the motor vehicle, and reverted its ownership and management right to the Plaintiff, and entered into a contract with the Defendant to operate and manage the motor vehicle under the independent calculation of the Defendant, whose own operation management right is entrusted by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The contract term in the instant contract is five years, but if there is no particular expression of intention between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it shall be automatically extended until the date of possession of the vehicle (Article 3), and the Defendant shall pay 150,000 won per month to the Plaintiff as management fees (excluding value-added tax and public charges). The management fees may be adjusted at any time by mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant shall not raise an objection to the management fees paid (Article 4), and the Defendant may not unilaterally cancel the instant contract when the Defendant was in arrears for not less than three months.

(Article 16(1)) was set forth.

B. The management fees stipulated in the instant contract were thereafter increased, and the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the increased management fees by October 31, 2016.

C. From November 2016, the Defendant did not pay management fees, association expenses, etc. to the Plaintiff, and the management fees, etc. unpaid until June 1, 2017 reached KRW 5,867,300.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 2 through Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant contract is a form of contract in which the elements of title trust and delegation are combined (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71534, 71541, Feb. 11, 2010). The fact that the duplicate of the instant complaint stating the declaration of intent to terminate the instant contract was served on the Defendant on June 30, 2017 is clear and thus, the instant contract is concluded.

arrow