2010 Ghana 46849 Registration for cancellation of ownership transfer

leap00

1. Kim 00

2. Kim △△△

3. Maximum 00

February 28, 2011

1. As to the Plaintiff, as to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet:

A. Defendant Kim △△△△ completed on June 6, 2010 Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. (Transfer)

B. Defendant Kim00, on July 2010, performed the registration cancellation procedure for the transfer of ownership completed by the Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the maximum 00 is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant KimOO, and Kim △△△△ is borne by the said Defendants, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 00 is borne by the Plaintiff.

In the disposition Nos. 1 and 200, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and eight million won with 5% interest per annum from June 29, 2010 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 24, 2010, the Plaintiff placed an advertisement on the bulletin board of the Internet used vehicle trading site in order to sell cars listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) owned by him/her at KRW 18 million. It was found out as a substitute for the Plaintiff to purchase a vehicle from a person who was not registered in the morning name on the 25th day of the same month. The Plaintiff demanded an amount of at least KRW 18 million at the next value, including the cost of receiving money from the person who was not registered in the morning. Upon deposit of the said money with the internal account, the Plaintiff was transferred to the effect that “I will put the amount of KRW 18 million except for the amount of money to be paid if the said money is deposited in the Plaintiff’s passbook, and that I would not sell it to that end.”

B. On the same day, the person under whose name the victim expressed his intention to purchase the vehicle of this case by making a phone call to Defendant MaO on the same day, and the above defendant expressed his intention to purchase the vehicle of this case to 14 million won. The person under whose name the victim is not entitled to make a phone call again to the above defendant around P.M. on the same day. The fact that he is liable to the above defendant, who is well aware of the owner of the vehicle, is trying to sell the vehicle of this case, and pay back the debt to the vehicle of this case. The person who sells the vehicle of this case and sells the vehicle of this case, and pays the remainder of the money excluding the principal debt, to pay the vehicle of this case to B. The punishment is imposed, and the punishment is not imposed, but he does not do so before making a question.

C. The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract on the day of delivery with Defendant 00, which was found to have been by telephone from the person with no personal knowledge as above in P.M. On the day, the Plaintiff and Defendant 00, trust only the above telephone content of the person with no personal knowledge, and thus, did not have any sufficient or sufficient means to directly ask the other party for the sales price of the instant vehicle, knowing that he was subject to the punishment by the person with no personal knowledge.

D. After the above sales contract, Defendant MaO deposited KRW 14 million with the account opened by the winners of his name (302024846841, No. 302,46841), and the Plaintiff was aware that the above Defendant deposited KRW 18 million, and issued the registration certificate and the certificate of personal seal to the above Defendant.

E. After long, in order to verify the payment made by the Plaintiff, a person with no name who caused a telephone to the person with no name had already withdrawn the money and had no contact with him.

F. After June 28, 2010, Defendant MaximumO finished the registration of change of ownership as stated in Paragraph (a) of Disposition No. 1 in the name of Defendant Kim △△△ in the name of Defendant Kim △△, who is engaged in the instant automobile trading business, and completed the registration of transfer of right to file a lawsuit as stated in Paragraph (b) of Disposition No. 1 in its name. On the 29th of the following month, he unilaterally driven the instant automobile and delivered it to Defendant Kim 00.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 4, Eul's whole pleading, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to claims against Defendant Kim 00 and Kim △△△△△

(1) In order to establish a contract, the agreement between the parties is required to be reached, and the agreement of such parties is not required with respect to all matters constituting the content of the contract in question, but there is a specific agreement with regard to its essential or important matters, or at least a specific standard and method in the future (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51650, Mar. 23, 2001). On the other hand, one of the parties has to enter into a sales contract.

It is established by an agreement between the parties on the transfer of the property right by the seller and the payment of the price to the other party under the agreement to transfer the property right to the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da34432 delivered on April 26, 1996, etc.).

(2) However, according to the facts acknowledged above, even until the end of the time when the plaintiff and the above defendant were aware of the fraudulent act of the deceased's name, the plaintiff's intention as to the sale price was finally determined 18 million won, while the purchase price actually paid to the deceased's name in fact is 14 million won, and it is difficult to view that at the time of the above sale contract, the plaintiff and the defendant 100 reached any actual agreement, which is the most important matter of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 100, since it is difficult to view that at the time of the above sale contract, the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 10 was not established.

(3) Therefore, since the sales contract between the Plaintiff on the instant motor vehicle and Defendant ○O is null and void as it is in the first place, Defendant Kim △△△, as its original state, has the obligation to complete the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as stated in the Disposition No. 1-B, and Defendant Kim 00 has the obligation to deliver the said motor vehicle to the Plaintiff as its original state.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant maximum 00

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant 00 had automatic tea registration certificate and certificate of personal seal even though he knows that the contract of this case is null and void, the plaintiff sold the motor vehicle of this case to the defendant Kim △△ and Kim 00 in sequential order without permission, and acquired the amount equivalent to the price (18 million won) and caused damages to the plaintiff in excess of the amount. Thus, the above defendant should pay to the plaintiff 18 million won and delay damages.

As seen earlier, as long as the Plaintiff’s registration of change of ownership and the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership on the instant motor vehicle against Defendant Kim 00 and Kim △△△△, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff suffered damages as alleged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Kim 00 and Kim △△△ for the reasons that it is reasonable, and the claim against the defendant Choi 00 is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Postal System