(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.11.09 2016가단7395

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.11.09 2016가단7395

자동차소유권이전등록절차이행등

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On March 2013, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) borrowed KRW 4,000,000 from a credit service provider under his/her name, and delivered a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached to the Plaintiff’s ownership (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) as collateral.

After two months thereafter, the Plaintiff called the said credit service provider to repay the borrowed money, but the said credit service provider’s telephone number was already lost, and the instant motor vehicle was not returned.

In order to find the location of the instant vehicle, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the Defendant occupied the instant vehicle at the end of the theft report.

Since the defendant asserts that he lawfully acquired the instant automobile, pursuant to Article 12 of the Automobile Management Act, the defendant is obligated to take over the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the transfer agreement from the plaintiff as to the instant automobile, and the defendant is obligated to pay various taxes, public charges, and administrative fines, such as the entries in the second list during which the vehicle was occupied and used.

2. There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a transfer agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant motor vehicle.

Rather, as the Plaintiff was the person, the Plaintiff is merely delivering the instant vehicle to a credit service provider under his/her name and does not seem to have entered into a direct transfer agreement with the Defendant.

In addition, since each local tax among the taxes and public charges listed in the attached list No. 2 is liable to pay to the registered owner of the motor vehicle, it is difficult to view that the defendant is responsible for the payment thereof, and there is no evidence to recognize that the fine for negligence and the tolls on the expressway were the defendant.

3. In conclusion, each of the plaintiff's claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2014.10.30 2013가단64244

-수원지방법원 2015.12.10 2015가단20052

-서울남부지방법원 2015.01.29 2014가단44509

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.09.09 2016가단8570

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.07 2016가단121008