A. Defendant C entered into a business agreement with Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on the operation of bus 2 services with respect to the bus 2 services, and agreed to receive monthly service payment from Defendant Company if the bus 2 services are operated by dividing it into A/S and B/S courses. In relation to the said bus 2 services, the Defendant Company entered into an entry agreement with Defendant C on the vehicle indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and completed the transfer of ownership under the name of Defendant Company on September 24, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff, from around the summer of 2011 to December 2015, operated the instant B/L with the instant vehicle from September 2012 to December 2015 while serving as a bus engineer who operates the B/L with a vehicle number D (hereinafter “D vehicle”).

C. On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7 million to Defendant C. D.

Defendant C filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff was stolen by arbitrarily driving the instant vehicle owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant complaint”). As a result of the investigation, the Plaintiff was subject to a decision on March 9, 2016 on the charge of larceny (Evidence of Evidence).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7-1, 2, 12-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant Company, as the actual owner of the instant vehicle, provided the instant vehicle to C for the purpose of operating the bus commuting to the Defendant Company, and entered into an access contract with the Defendant Company, and thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to seek registration of transfer of ownership on the instant vehicle by subrogation of C for the purpose of preserving it. Thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to seek registration of transfer of ownership on the instant vehicle between C and the Defendant Company.