(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.11.30 2016재가단18

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) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.11.30 2016재가단18

자동차소유권이전등록절차인수 청구

Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Determination of the original judgment

A. In around 2008, the Plaintiff received a loan from a bond company with no name and issued all the documents, such as the vehicle waiver and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression necessary for the transfer of the name. Since then, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming that the transferee of the instant vehicle was the Defendant, claiming that he was the Defendant.

B. On August 8, 2016, the Defendant received a duplicate of the above contents, but failed to submit a written answer, and this court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial (non-litigation) that accepts all the claims of the Plaintiff stated in the purport of the claim on September 8, 2016. The Defendant was served with the original copy of the judgment on September 13, 2016, but did not appeal, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 28, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Defendant’s reply to the grounds for retrial reached a court by mail on the date on which the Defendant’s decision for retrial was rendered, the judgment was rendered as it is.

The judgment subject to review is clear that the fact of receiving the reply on the day of declaration is an excessive judgment, and it is a case where the judgment is omitted with respect to the important matters that may affect the judgment.

In this case, the defendant's children borrowed the instant vehicle from the middle and high endr, and at this time, the defendant's card was covered by a short-term insurance for six months, but the vehicle was returned to the endr.

Although the plaintiff did not submit any other evidence in addition to the register of automobiles, the court's decision without examining tin or basic data is also an omission of judgment on basic evidence, which is also an omission of judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment.

Therefore, Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable to the judgment subject to review.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제9호

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.06.02 2015재나195

-서울남부지방법원 2015.02.12 2014재나72

-서울고등법원 2018.11.29 2018재누10171

-서울북부지방법원 2017.04.12 2016재나116

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.19 2020재가단5002