(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.06.19 2014가단21158

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) 서울북부지방법원 2015.06.19 2014가단21158

자동차소유권이전등록절차이행등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On August 20, 2001, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) borrowed two million won from the Solo Mutual Savings and Finance Company, and offered an automobile listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobile”); and (b) if the Plaintiff fails to pay its debts, the said credit cooperative was a condition that it arbitrarily disposes of the instant automobile.

As the plaintiff was unable to repay his debt, the defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure based on the "Agreement on Payment in Kind" as of August 16, 2003.

In addition, the Defendant, while operating the instant vehicle, did not accept the transfer registration procedure, did not unlawfully impose automobile tax and fine for negligence on the Plaintiff. The Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the claim for the acquisition of the automobile ownership transfer registration procedure, the fact that the defendant occupied the instant automobile and entered into the automobile insurance contract with the insurance company, the policyholder, and the insured as the plaintiff, considering the fact-finding results of the fact-finding with the office of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the whole purport of the pleadings in light of the fact-finding results of the fact-finding with respect to the instant automobile.

(2) However, payment in substitutes means the obligor’s performance of another obligation on behalf of the existing obligation. In light of the fact that there is no evidence to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the delivery of the instant vehicle in lieu of the repayment on August 16, 2003, the mere fact that the Defendant used the instant vehicle for a long time is insufficient to deem that there was an agreement on the payment in substitutes between the two.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the claim for damages equivalent to automobile tax and fine for negligence, (1) No. 3-1 is written.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원순천지원 2015.06.26 2014가단16023

-서울북부지방법원 2015.10.13 2015가단10698

-대구지방법원 2016.08.17 2016가단995

-서울북부지방법원 2014.02.19 2013가단46228

-서울북부지방법원 2016.09.22 2015가단16405