The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Article 12 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 9449 of Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides for the registration of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle as follows. A person who takes over a registered motor vehicle shall file an application for the registration of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle with the Mayor/Do Governor as prescribed by Presidential Decree (paragraph (1)). In cases where the transferee of the motor vehicle intends to transfer the motor vehicle again to a third party, the person who takes over the motor vehicle shall file an application for the registration

Article 33(1) of the former Automobile Registration Rules (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 239, Apr. 7, 2010) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21789, Oct. 19, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21789, Oct. 19, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “Motor Vehicle Registration Decree”) provides that “When a transferor intends to apply for the registration of transfer pursuant to Article 12(4) of the Automobile Management Act, he/she shall submit the application to the registration authority along with documents determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.” Article 33(1) of the former Automobile Registration Rules (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 239, Apr. 7, 2010) (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 239), along with a certified copy of the following subparagraphs, shall be attached to the application for registration of transfer:

In light of the language, content, structure, etc. of the Automobile Management Act, if a transferee of a motor vehicle does not transfer the title of registration from a transferor while receiving a motor vehicle from a transferor, the transferor is entitled to take over the ownership transfer registration against the transferee pursuant to Article 12(4) of the Automobile Management Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da11920, Apr. 24, 2008). However, in cases where a motor vehicle is transferred before the transfer of a motor vehicle, the transferor cannot directly seek implementation of the procedure for taking over the ownership transfer registration in his/her name against the transferee unless there is an agreement on the interim omission registration.

2. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that seeks to take over the transfer registration procedure on the instant motor vehicle on the following grounds.

A. On October 23, 2007, the Plaintiff registered the ownership transfer of the instant motor vehicle. Before January 31, 2009, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 1.5 million from a nominal bondholder and offered documents, such as a vehicle waiver letter to waive the instant motor vehicle if it is not possible to repay within two months, and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and resident registration certificate necessary for the transfer of name. The Plaintiff failed to repay the borrowed money.

On January 31, 2009, the Defendant purchased and operated the instant vehicle in KRW 7 million from the sale of used cars on its name. From August 5, 2009 to August 5, 201, the Defendant subscribed to the automobile insurance as to the instant automobile, and sold the instant automobile to the branch on August 5, 2011. (B) The Plaintiff, in order to obtain the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Plaintiff, should be recognized that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the transfer of ownership transfer registration to the Defendant, or that there was an agreement on the transfer registration between the Plaintiff and the intermediate. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be recognized.

In accordance with Article 12 of the Automobile Management Act, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff can seek the acquisition of transfer registration procedure to the Defendant without any direct contractual relationship with respect to the instant automobile.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff could not seek the acquisition of the transfer registration procedure on the instant motor vehicle from the Defendant is justifiable in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in breach of logical and empirical rules,

4. The Plaintiff’s appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-sik in charge

Justices Min Min-young

Justices Noh Tae-ok