(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2014.07.23 2013가단16338

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) 수원지방법원여주지원 2014.07.23 2013가단16338

자동차소유권이전등록

Text

1. On December 16, 2013, the Defendant has caused the termination of the entrustment contract with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff shall operate the instant vehicle upon entrustment by the Defendant, but shall pay the Plaintiff fees, etc., on the part of the Defendant as to the motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).

B. The Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intent to terminate the instant contract by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint, and the duplicate of the complaint reached the Defendant on December 16, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The instant contract is a type of contract in which the elements of title trust and delegation are combined, and the Plaintiff, at any time, in the position of the delegating and the title truster, is in the position to terminate the contract and restore ownership to the motor vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da29479, Nov. 11, 197). As long as the duplicate of the instant complaint indicating the intent to terminate the contract was served on the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration on the instant motor vehicle upon the termination of the entrustment contract.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion regarding the non-existence of the right to terminate the contract of this case, the Defendant’s claim for the termination of the contract of this case without a lawful clear statement or procedure is against the principle of trust and good faith, and pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Addenda of the amended Trucking Transport Business Act (Act No. 7100, Jan. 20, 2004; hereinafter “instant Act”) which permits the individual trucking transport business using one truck, “as of January 20, 2004,” a truck registered in title with the operator of the trucking transport business as of January 20, 204, which was promulgated by

참조조문

-화물자동차 운수사업법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원여주지원 2015.02.25 2014가단9771

-서울남부지방법원 2015.04.08 2014가단67588

-대전지방법원서산지원 2014.08.12 2014가단3056

-수원지방법원 2015.03.26 2014가단60039

-부산지방법원 2018.05.03 2017가단21738