logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2019.11.27 2019가단4330
전동지게차인도 등
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,025,200 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 27, 2019 to November 27, 2019, and the following.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Based on the Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Gaso20426, the Defendant filed an application for the auction of corporeal movables with respect to the instant exclusive owner, which was located in D in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongbuk-gun, based on the conciliation protocol against C (hereinafter “C”).

On March 6, 2019, the Defendant, at the auction procedure ( Daejeon District Court E; hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) conducted on March 6, 2019, purchased the instant former vehicle at KRW 7.5 million, and received dividends of KRW 7,025,260 remaining after deducting the execution cost from the said purchase price as a creditor.

B. On March 13, 2019, F: (a) around February 2016, 201, prepared a written confirmation of transfer that he/she transferred to G the former truck recorded in the attached list (hereinafter “the former truck”). (b) around February 2017, G prepared a written confirmation of transfer that the former truck was transferred to the Plaintiff; and (c) obtained the certification from each notarial office.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there exists no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) In the first place, even though the Defendant knew that the ownership of the previous owner of the instant vehicle was owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant was awarded a successful bid in the instant auction procedure, and thus, it is obligated to deliver it to the Plaintiff. 2) If the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff had ownership of the previous owner of the instant vehicle, then the previous owner of the instant vehicle was purchased from G in the amount of KRW 10 million. However, the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff, but the Defendant received dividends of KRW 7,025,200 from the auction procedure of the previous owner of the instant vehicle owned by the Plaintiff and received dividends of KRW 7,025,200, and thereby incurred loss to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount of KRW 7,025,200 as unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant shall move the previous vehicle of this case to C.

arrow