(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.04.04 2017가단13495

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) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.04.04 2017가단13495

자동차소유권이전등록절차이행청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall deliver to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) the motor vehicle indicated in the attached Form.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On April 14, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) paid the sales price of KRW 16 million to a used vehicle dealer; and (b) purchased the attached vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); and (c) the Defendant, the owner of the instant vehicle, is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration in accordance with the said sales contract.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s counterclaim claim presented that C would exchange the instant motor vehicle and benz motor vehicle with D’s husband of the Defendant’s husband, and it was merely admitted to C around April 12, 2016, and there was no fact that the Defendant did not conclude a sales contract with the Plaintiff on the instant motor vehicle, and there was no fact that C or other person delegated the instant motor vehicle sales contract to C or others.

Therefore, the Plaintiff possessing the instant motor vehicle has the duty to deliver the instant motor vehicle to the Defendant, the owner.

2. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff on the claim of the main claim is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant delegated the right to sell and purchase the instant motor vehicle to C or a used motor vehicle dealer, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions and arguments in No. 3-1, No. 4, 5, and No. 3-2, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant granted the right to representation regarding the instant automobile sales contract to the seller of C or used cars, and it is difficult to deem that there was a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff had the right to representation regarding the instant automobile sales contract to the seller of used cars.

① In light of the delegation letter of automobile transfer (Evidence 4) and the delegation letter of automobile registration (Evidence 5 of the A), the Defendant’s name is only indicated, but does not include any other matters, and thus, the Plaintiff has the form and content of the general delegation form.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.02.10 2014가단7281

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.07.17 2014가단23546

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.03.17 2014가단304106

-부산지방법원 2020.04.23 2019나51963

-울산지방법원 2017.04.05 2016나4044