logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.07.15 2014가합2222
매매계약무효확인 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B, C, and D shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant Co., Ltd.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On November 30, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract under which Defendant Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Capital”) will obtain a loan on the condition that it would create a mortgage on the instant motor vehicle (hereinafter “instant loan contract”) with Defendant Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Citizens”) by making a loan of KRW 48 million (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”), 36 months of the loan period, 28.5% of the loan interest rate, and 29.32% of the real interest rate, on the condition that it would create a mortgage on the instant motor vehicle (hereinafter “instant loan contract”).

Defendant Hyundai Capital, on November 30, 2012, deducted various costs from loans of KRW 48 million and remitted loans of KRW 47.5 million to Korea residents, thereby allowing the said loans to be used for the purchase fund of the instant vehicle.

On December 26, 2012, the instant automobile was transferred to the Plaintiff’s ownership under the name of the Plaintiff, and on the same day, a mortgage was established over Defendant Hyundai Capital as a mortgagee.

【The grounds for recognition】 The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase of the part of the entire pleadings against the confessions, Defendant B, and D: Service by public notice; the remainder Defendants: the absence of dispute; the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase of the part of the entire pleadings (including the serial number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply); upon the Defendant’s request, in collusion with Defendant C and D for the purchase of the part of the second and second vehicles; and on November 30, 2012, it was merely lent the name under the loan contract; and on December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff did not permit the said Defendants to actually conclude the instant purchase contract under the name of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff

A sales contract (No. 2, hereinafter referred to as the "sales contract of this case") prepared on the part of the defendant arms arms and the motor vehicles of this case in the name of the defendant arms and the motor vehicles of this case is forged, and the plaintiff is the plaintiff.

arrow