(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.05.18 2015나35376

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) 수원지방법원 2016.05.18 2015나35376

소유권이전등록

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as stated in Article 420 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Article 12(1) of the Automobile Management Act provides that “A person who acquires a registered motor vehicle shall file an application for the registration of transfer of ownership with the Mayor/Do Governor,” and Article 12(4) of the same Act provides that “Where a transferee of a motor vehicle fails to file an application for the registration of transfer of ownership, a transferor (referring to the owner recorded in the register at the time of the application for the registration of transfer of ownership) may file an application on behalf of the transferee.” Thus, a person registered as an owner in the register of motor vehicle may seek the acquisition of the transfer of ownership from not only the person who directly acquires the motor vehicle

(2) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle on June 4, 2004 at least the following occasions: (a) barring any special circumstance, from the Plaintiff registered as the owner of the instant vehicle on August 4, 2004, the obligation to take over the transfer of ownership registration procedure for the instant vehicle on the ground of sale on June 4, 2004, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, from the Plaintiff registered as the owner of the instant vehicle in the original registry.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. On June 4, 2004, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant could not respond to the Plaintiff’s request since it purchased the instant vehicle from C to the end of May 2005, but was operated until May 4, 2005.

B. The Defendant’s above assertion as to the cancellation or cancellation of the sales contract is stated as Gap evidence 2.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-자동차관리법 제12조 제1항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.06 2015가단7434

-대구지방법원 2016.02.23 2015가단37808

-대전지방법원 2016.07.06 2015가단41944

-대구지방법원 2016.11.10 2016가단7477

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.02.02 2015가단19241