logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.06.25 2015구합50065
자동차매매사업정지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff has run the automobile sales and brokerage business under the trade name, “C commercial” as “C commercial.”

B. On September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff arranged a motor vehicle sales contract to transfer the Epis vehicle owned by D (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) to F (G) (hereinafter “instant brokerage contract”). On January 5, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition suspending the motor vehicle transaction business for 30 days against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 58(1)2 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act by failing to notify F in writing as to whether seizure and mortgage were registered at the time of the instant brokerage contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion notified F of the fact that the instant vehicle was registered with the mortgage, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition only by the F’s statement, and the Defendant did not conduct a substantive investigation, such as having F and F in the hearing process.

In addition, considering the fact that the Plaintiff had previously violated the Automobile Management Act and that the employees of the Plaintiff’s workplace lose their workplace, the instant disposition was abused and abused discretion.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination of relevant statutes attached to relevant statutes

C. Determination 1) According to Article 58(1)2 of the Automobile Management Act, where a motor vehicle dealer sells a motor vehicle or arranges the sale of a motor vehicle, he/she shall notify the registration of seizure and mortgage before entering into a sales contract in writing. According to each of the aforementioned evidence and arguments, the Plaintiff’s certificate of transfer of the motor vehicle at the time of the instant brokerage act (A).

arrow