beta
Text
1. The Defendant caused the termination of the title trust on November 16, 2012 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 8, 2012, the Defendant: (a) purchased the D Business Division’s office located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, using a part of the D Business Division’s office to receive a loan; and (b) paid the monthly payment on the face of a week without a mold; and (c) transferred the name within three months.
B. On August 16, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) on August 16, 2012, and completed the transfer registration procedure in its own name, and delivered the said motor vehicle to the Defendant.
C. The Defendant, even if purchasing the instant vehicle in the name of the Plaintiff, was sentenced to a punishment of 1 year and 4 months imprisonment on November 28, 2017 with respect to the facts constituting the crime that the Defendant had the Plaintiff purchase the instant vehicle in the name of the Plaintiff, even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the monthly installments, as above, and was sentenced to a punishment of 1 year and 4 months imprisonment with labor, and the said judgment became final and conclusive after filing an appeal.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings]
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a title trust agreement with respect to the instant motor vehicle, and that the said title trust agreement was lawfully terminated on November 16, 2012, which was three months from August 16, 2012, which was agreed upon by the original Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to take over from the Plaintiff the transfer of ownership registration procedure based on the termination of title trust on November 16, 2012.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.