logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.01.22 2014나5792
소유권이전등록
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff, on October 2005, requested the Haman to sell and purchase the instant vehicle, along with all the documents necessary for the registration of transfer, and the defendant purchased and operated the instant vehicle directly from a third party who was requested to sell and sell the instant vehicle from C or C on October 30, 2005, or purchased and operated the instant vehicle.

As can be seen, an implied agreement on the registration of transfer of ownership in the form of intermediate omission should be concluded between the intermediary and the plaintiff and the defendant in the process of the pre-distribution.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks against the Defendant the transfer registration procedure, which was based on the transfer agreement on October 30, 2005, regarding the instant automobile.

2. Determination

A. In relation to KRW 1,025,70 of the automobile tax in arrears due to the entrustment of collection of the Sinyang-si on June 29, 2010 and KRW 1,025,700, the Defendant kept in custody the registration number plate of the instant automobile established in the vicinity of the Sinyang-gu, Seoyang-si. The Defendant paid KRW 1,025,700 of the said automobile tax on July 30, 2010 and received the said registration number plate in consideration of the purport of the entire pleadings.

However, the defendant purchased the automobile of this case only by the fact of the above recognition.

It is difficult to readily conclude that he/she was either a person or a transferee, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. In addition, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant directly purchased or acquired the instant motor vehicle from a person who was requested to sell or purchase the instant motor vehicle from C or C, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

C. If so, even if the Defendant assumed that he purchased or acquired the instant automobile, the Plaintiff, who seeks the implementation of the transfer registration procedure on the instant automobile directly against the Defendant by the last transferee, is both intermediate parties and the Plaintiff in the process of pre-distribution.

arrow