logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.06.24 2014나17367
자동차소유권이전등록
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, on October 31, 201, Eul sold a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet No. 17,50,000 (hereinafter "the sales contract of this case") to the defendant on October 31, 201 (hereinafter "the contract of this case"). The defendant paid 1,50,000 won out of the purchase price of the motor vehicle of this case to C on the date of the contract, and the remaining 6,50,000 won was paid by subrogation for the liability for installment payment of the motor vehicle to Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. on March 14, 201; C died on November 28, 201, the plaintiff and two children, his spouse, and the plaintiff acquired the transfer of ownership from the plaintiff on April 19, 2012, and the defendant had no obligation to waive the transfer of ownership.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The registration of seizure was completed several times due to an administrative fine of approximately KRW 12,00,000, health insurance premium delinquency, etc. The Plaintiff had a duty to cancel the above registration of seizure and expressed to the Defendant that the above registration of seizure cannot be cancelled on several occasions without cancelling the above registration of seizure even though it was obligated to register the transfer of ownership of the instant vehicle, and thus, the Defendant was released from the sales contract by delivery of the statement of grounds of appeal dated January 12, 2015. 2) C did not notify the Plaintiff that the amount of delinquent taxes, such as the administrative fine seized on the instant vehicle, reaches approximately KRW 12,00,000 at the time of the instant sales contract. The sales contract of this case was concluded by the Defendant’s deception, and thus, is null and void or the important part of the sales contract is important.

arrow