A. On July 201, the Plaintiffs purchased a new lane for each one-half portion of the instant automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) and completed the ownership transfer registration, and then delivered the instant automobiles to Plaintiff B’s Dong G and his husband, and thereafter the said G and H used the instant automobiles from around that time.

B. Defendant D, who had been operating an automobile trader under the trade name of “I Motor Vehicle Sales Company,” entered into a sales contract with G to purchase the instant motor vehicle with KRW 18 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); prepared an application for registration of transfer under the name of the Plaintiffs, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant D on June 28, 2013.

C. After that, on July 3, 2013, Defendant C completed the transfer of ownership on the instant motor vehicle, and thereafter, Defendant C occupied and used the instant motor vehicle from that time to that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the fact that G entered into the instant sales contract with Defendant D on the instant motor vehicle registered as owned by the Plaintiffs is as follows: (a) as to whether G was authorized to conclude the instant sales contract by the Plaintiffs, the fact that G had the Plaintiffs deliver and operate the instant motor vehicle to G and H; (b) however, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs delegated the right to conclude the instant sales contract to G solely on the basis of the aforementioned facts and the statement of the number including the number number, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant D, which was made on the ground of the instant sales contract, is null and void, and the name of Defendant C, which was based on it.