(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.01.13 2015가단34335

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) 대전지방법원 2017.01.13 2015가단34335

자동차소유권이전등록절차인수등

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion in collusion with the non-party C and D, and the defendant transferred the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the instant motor vehicle") owned by the defendant to the plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff and transferred it again to the defendant's name three days after the day after the week, and the defendant continuously operated the instant motor vehicle but did not transfer its name, and thus continuous damage has occurred to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to accept the procedure for the registration of the transfer of name from the plaintiff.

In addition, the defendant should bear the administrative fine, etc. that occurred during the period of the use of the automobile of this case, so it is sought to confirm that the defendant is liable for the payment.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the procedure for ownership transfer registration was completed on January 21, 2014 with respect to the instant automobile owned by the defendant, but the statement in Gap evidence No. 3 and No. 6 alone alone held that the defendant title trust the instant automobile to the plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the contract for transfer in its name has been made after 3 days, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it seems that Nonparty C used the above vehicle as sales price, etc. after borrowing KRW 45 million from the above vehicle as collateral to the Plaintiff, and transferring the name of the vehicle to the Plaintiff.

(B) The Defendant is deemed to have been aware of the fact that the Defendant sold the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff at once, but it appears to have been attributable to the claim and obligation with C and the permission of C. Thus, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed that the Defendant entrusted the name of the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff). The Defendant also assumes that the Defendant is the actual owner.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.11.27 2015나53501

-의정부지방법원 2014.02.11 2013가단27145

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.02.03 2015가단21365

-수원지방법원 2015.10.14 2015나4365

-인천지방법원 2018.10.19 2017가단207924