logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2019.06.13 2018가단80664
자동차이전등록인수
Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant, from the Plaintiff, on the motor vehicles indicated in the separate sheet, shall be as to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Basic facts: Article 1 (Basic Principles) (2) The plaintiff and the defendant shall comply with the provisions of the Trucking Transport Business Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in performing this contract.

Article 3 (Term of Contract and Renewal) (1) The term of validity of this contract shall be two years (not less than two years) from the date of conclusion, and the same content shall be deemed to have been automatically extended unless the plaintiff or defendant expresses his/her intent to terminate the contract at the expiration of the term.

(2) Other matters concerning the renewal of contracts shall be governed by the provisions of Article 40-2 of the Trucking Transport Business Act.

Article 11 (Grounds for Termination of Contract) If the defendant falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the plaintiff may terminate the contract after notifying the defendant of the procedure under paragraph (3):

3. Where a trucking employee violates his/her obligations under Article 12 of the Trucking Transport Business Act (3) The Plaintiff shall specify the violation of the contract with a grace period of not less than two months and notify the Defendant in writing that the contract will be terminated unless the contract is corrected;

However, the same shall not apply where there is a serious reason that it is difficult to continue the contract as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Trucking Transport Business Act.

On January 31, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant reverted to the Plaintiff the name of the automobile indicated in the separate sheet, but entered into an entrusted management contract with the Defendant to entrust and manage the freight trucking services by the said automobile. On November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant again entered into an entrustment contract with the freight trucking services (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”).

B. The Defendant refused to transport the Plaintiff’s cargo from March 2018.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to return to the Plaintiff Company by content-certified mail on March 23, 2018 and April 10, 2018.

arrow