(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.05.13 2014가단25107

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.05.13 2014가단25107

자동차소유권이전등록절차인수 등

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part concerning the claim for confirmation of liability for payment of taxes, public charges, and administrative fines shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff is seeking confirmation of the defendant that the defendant is liable to pay taxes, public charges, and fines for negligence on the instant motor vehicle after the defendant acquired the instant motor vehicle. Thus, we examine whether this part of the lawsuit is legitimate ex officio.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship which is the subject matter of confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the benefits of confirmation as the confirmation judgment in order to eliminate the plaintiff's legal status's apprehension and danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). Even if the plaintiff is rendered a confirmation judgment against the defendant for the same reason as the plaintiff alleged, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not extend only between the plaintiff and the local government, and thus, it cannot be set up against the competent administrative agency imposing public charges or a fine for negligence, and the plaintiff's obligation to pay public charges, etc. registered as the owner in the register of automobiles is not extinguished, and therefore, it cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's legal status anxiety and danger.

Therefore, the part concerning the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay taxes, public charges, and fines among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Determination on the part of the claim for the transfer registration procedure

A. (1) On August 3, 2006, C completed the transfer of ownership on the instant motor vehicle on August 3, 2006, and completed the registration of mortgage creation with the mortgagee, Thai Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., the bond value of KRW 12,00,000, and debtor C.

(2) The defendant shall be the insured and the policyholder four times over the period from September 14, 2006 to September 14, 2010.

참조판례

-대법원 1994. 11. 22. 선고 93다40089 판결

-대법원 2005. 12. 22. 선고 2003다55059 판결

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.01.21 2014나16661

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.11.06 2015가단16330

-대구지방법원 2015.07.28 2015가단9056 (1)

-서울서부지방법원 2015.06.05 2014가단45181

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.11.10 2015가단2576