2015Da1208 Claims to implement the procedures for the registration of the transfer of ownership of motor vehicles

A

B

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Na19896 Decided November 27, 2014

June 23, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The interpretation of a juristic act is objectively established by the parties’ objective determination of the meaning that the parties gave to an act of expression. In the event of a conflict of opinion regarding the interpretation of a contract between the parties, where the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the contract document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200

In addition, even in a case where a contract is rescinded, as in the case of the formation of a contract, the requirements are to be consistent with the opposite expression of intent, such as the offer and acceptance of the contract to terminate the validity of an existing contract. However, the rescission of the contract may be made explicitly and implicitly. Thus, in a case where the lack or renunciation of the intent to realize the contract by both parties after the contract accords objectively with the contents expressed in both parties’ expression of intent, it is reasonable to deem that the contract was rescinded implicitly by the agreement between both parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da57208, Sept. 13, 2004).

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant was liable to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on November 6, 2013 with respect to the instant vehicle since the sales contract on the instant vehicle was effective by recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the Defendant’s defense, for which the instant sales contract was rescinded, is a punishment for dispute over the location of the Plaintiff and the refund of the purchase price, after the Defendant became aware of the fact that he was unaware of the name from the person in default on the date of the instant sales contract, and then the Defendant was punished for the dispute as to the location of the responsibility for the Plaintiff and the refund of the purchase price, etc., of the instant letter, even though he was aware of the fact that each of the instant forms was signed and signed by both parties, in light of the developments and language of the formation of the said letter, and all circumstances, such as the attitude and language thereof, and the attitude of the parties following the said agreement, it is difficult to

3. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) On October 2013, the Defendant posted a notice to sell the instant vehicle at KRW 21,00,000 on the Internet medium-sized Vehicle Sales Site. The Defendant would purchase the instant vehicle at KRW 21,00,000,000 from the name defectiveer named as “D”. However, instead of a direct occurrence of a sudden occurrence, it would have made a contract by having the same infant confirm and enter the instant vehicle into a contract. In order to reduce acquisition tax, a sales contract entered the purchase price in KRW 16,30,00,00 and entered the same as the purchase price in KRW 16,30,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000 won into the account designated by the Defendant. In order to transfer the purchase price to E account, the Defendant would immediately transfer the vehicle to the same child, and thus, should not transfer the vehicle to the same child on January 16, 2013.

2) Meanwhile, on November 2013, the Plaintiff intended to sell the instant vehicle to KRW 16,30,000,000 from a person who was not the deceased in the name of the first police officer. On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff was called to the effect that “the Plaintiff would purchase the instant vehicle if he/she ascertains the state of the vehicle or the state of the vehicle at the above place and if he/she is punished

3) On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to sell and sell the instant vehicle at the above location, and prepared a sales contract. The sales contract entered the sales amount of KRW 16,30,000 in that sales contract. The Defendant had known the Plaintiff’s telephone number while ordering the Plaintiff to transfer the sales amount to “D” person. Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred the sales amount of KRW 16,30,000 to the account of “E” called “D” and then, the Plaintiff sent the sales amount of KRW 16,30,000 to the account of “D”. However, the Defendant, without receiving the sales amount, was immediately required to contact with the Nonparty.

4) As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant came to know that they were unaware of their names, and then argued about the location of liability and the implementation of the sales contract or the refund of the sales price. On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared and signed the instant letter with the purport that, with respect to vehicle sales fraud cases that occurred on November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff would deposit KRW 16,30,000 to the Plaintiff by the next day confirmed to the Plaintiff (if it is confirmed by the investigative agency, the amount of damage would have been deposited) if there is no relationship with D.

B. The following circumstances revealed by these factual relations are as follows: (i) the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the instant sales contract with their names in favor of their respective names, and the Plaintiff remitted the purchase price to the account of E; (ii) the Plaintiff was due to the Defendant’s transfer of KRW 16.3 million to E’s account designated by the deceased, under the sales contract; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s transfer of the purchase price to the Plaintiff, while the Defendant did not have any ownership transfer registration, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not dispute over the location of liability for damages and the implementation of the sales contract or the return of the purchase price; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s preparation of the instant contract was made in favor of the Plaintiff’s name in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the purchase price to its name in favor of his name in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff was not related to his name in favor of his name in advance; and (iii) it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages to the Plaintiff can not be implicitly paid to the Plaintiff as the result of the instant sales contract’s cancellation of ownership transfer registration instead of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the contract of this case remains effective between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of expression of intent as to the rescission of contract, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Decision 200

Justices Lee In-bok, Counsel for the appeal

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young