The costs of lawsuit brought by the plaintiff's appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The part of the original judgment against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

For the reasons why the original judgment rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages, the defendant's execution cannot be recognized as a tort in this case where the defendant's evidence Nos. 1 (No. 62Da4403, Dec. 1, 2000) is a notarial deed such as a certificate (the case of a claim for the delivery of movable property between the Seoul District Court 62Da4403, the plaintiff Lee In-bok Construction Co., Ltd.) and a final judgment, and where it is recognized that the defendant's execution cannot be recognized as a tort because it was confirmed that the property owned by the defendant was owned by the defendant and forced execution as a result of a final judgment, even if examining this by the record, it is not illegal in the court below's disposition

The defendant's attorney's ground of appeal is examined.

The judgment of the court below was based on evidence that the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the non-party 1, 1962.2.16, after entering into a strong security agreement between the non-party 1 and the defendant on the purchase of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, the plaintiff purchased the non-party 1 as the plaintiff 1, and let the non-party 1 operate the non-party 1, and had the non-party 2 transferred it to the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, and the non-party 3, the non-party 3.

However, according to Article 5 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, the acquisition and loss of the ownership of a motor vehicle takes effect upon registration, and according to Article 2, Article 3 and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the acquisition and loss of the ownership of a motor vehicle belongs to a Class-I special motor vehicle, so it is clear that it belongs to a Class-I special motor vehicle, so there is no room for application of the provisions on bona fide acquisition under Article 249 of the Civil Act (Supreme Court Decision 64Da650 delivered on September 8, 1964). Accordingly, the court below erred in holding that the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the motor vehicle in good faith on the same ground as the original sale date by applying Article 249 of the Civil Act as to this issue by applying Article 249 of the same Act to this case. The appeal on this point is with merit, and the Seoul High Court's judgment against the defendant is reversed, and the litigation cost incurred by the plaintiff's appeal is assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman