1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Article 2 of the Judgment of the court of first instance

1. Judgment on the cause of the claim (the part concerning the procedure taken over for the registration of the ownership transfer);

A. The Plaintiff: (a) around November 9, 2012, granted the right to purchase and sell the instant vehicle to the needy persons; and (b) around that time, the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle through the said needy persons; (c) around November 24, 2012, the Defendant purchased and was handed over the instant vehicle by depositing KRW 13,500,000 to the Plaintiff’s account via B.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. In the event that the transferee of the vehicle does not transfer the registered title while the transferee received the vehicle from the transferor, the transferor may seek against the transferee the procedure for accepting the ownership transfer registration.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da2949 Decided April 22, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da11920 Decided April 24, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2012Da24361 Decided March 13, 2014, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, B is deemed to have transferred the instant automobile to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff upon delegation from the Plaintiff before selling the instant automobile, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the buyer of the instant automobile, is obligated to take over the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant automobile.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the owner in the public record and the actual owner acquired the instant vehicle under the intention of operating the vehicle under the name of another person, and sold the instant vehicle to another person, and the instant vehicle does not exist in the Republic of Korea. Thus, the defendant cannot comply with the claim in this case.

However, as long as the Defendant acquired the instant automobile from the Plaintiff through B, the Plaintiff may seek implementation of the procedure for acquiring the ownership transfer registration for the instant automobile in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion.