2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

A. On August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff, a lessor, etc., entered into a lease agreement with A on the said vehicle on the same day as the owner who completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). A received delivery of the instant vehicle from around that time.

B. The Defendant forfeited the instant vehicle that was seized from Defendant B in the case of violation of the Customs Duties Act, etc. by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da5561, 2016 Godan2409 (Consolidated). The said judgment became final and conclusive August 24, 2016, and the Defendant currently occupies the instant vehicle.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the claim

A. In a case where there are special circumstances, such as acquisition, loss, and transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle or a mid-term owner of a motor vehicle, which became effective by registration, and an agreement between the parties to hold ownership by a person who is not the title holder of the registration, barring from the internal relationship, only the title holder of the registration

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4498 Decided January 11, 2007). According to the above facts, the Plaintiff is registered as the owner of the instant automobile, and the confiscation is sentenced only to B in the criminal judgment against B, and the confiscation is not effective against the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant, without title, who possesses the instant automobile against the Plaintiff, is obligated to deliver the instant automobile to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant asserts that he has the right to possess the automobile of this case in accordance with the law since the judgment of confiscation of the automobile of this case against the defendant B became final and conclusive, but the judgment that sentenced confiscation of the goods belonging to a third party other than the defendant is judged guilty in principle as to the facts which constitute the cause of confiscation.