logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.21 2015가단133158
자동차소유권 이전등록절차 이행
Text

1. The defendant is based on the transfer of the motor vehicle stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiff on February 2010.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 30, 2001, the Plaintiff completed the new registration of ownership of a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”). On April 2005, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 4.5 million from the Had Capital Co., Ltd. and issued necessary documents for the transfer of name while offering the instant motor vehicle as security.

B. On February 2010, the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle and operated it for two years after purchasing it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, fact-finding results to the head of Gwanak-gu in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) (1) Where a transferee of a motor vehicle has made an application for the registration of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle to the Mayor/Do governor, and the transferee of the motor vehicle has failed to make an application for the registration of transfer, the transferor (referring to the owner recorded in the register as at the time of the application for the registration of transfer) may do

(2) In light of the legal principles as to the transfer of ownership registration procedure as to the instant motor vehicle, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant acquired the instant motor vehicle from the Plaintiff or from the person who transferred the instant motor vehicle before it. Thus, the Plaintiff recorded in the original register as the owner may seek the acquisition of ownership transfer registration procedure as to the instant motor vehicle from the Defendant.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the instant vehicle was scrapped on April 2013, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the said assertion is not acceptable.

3. If so, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is reasonable, and thus, the Defendant is ordered to take over the transfer registration procedure based on the transfer of ownership as of February 2010, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow