logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원거창지원 2014.11.11 2014가단1176
자동차소유권이전등록절차 이행
Text

1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) dated May 9, 2014 regarding the motor vehicles indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. Determination on the main claim

A. In light of no dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in the statement in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment management contract with the Defendant on June 2002, with the content that “the Plaintiff invested the instant vehicle in kind with the Defendant, and actually operates the instant vehicle upon being entrusted with the right to manage cargo transportation services from the Defendant, to pay monthly land entry management fees, taxes and public charges, deduction charges, insurance premiums, etc. in return for the entrustment of the right to operate and manage the said vehicle” (hereinafter “instant land entry contract”).

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the instant land entry contract is a form of contract in which the Plaintiff registers the instant automobile under the name of the Defendant and vests in the Defendant’s ownership and management right. However, in its inside, the instant land entry contract is a type of contract in which the elements of title trust and delegation are combined, and the Plaintiff, who is in the position of the truster and the truster, may terminate the instant land entry contract at any time, at any time, at the time when the Plaintiff, who is in the position of the truster, is operating and managing the instant automobile under his own independent account by being entrusted with its own operation and management right.

Therefore, the instant land entry contract was lawfully terminated on May 9, 2014 when the copy of the complaint of this case stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract was delivered to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, on the instant motor vehicle, constitutes the cause of termination.

arrow