1. The defendant is a motor vehicle on January 20, 209, which is based on the acquisition by transfer from the plaintiff as to the motor vehicle stated in the separate sheet.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the plaintiff's claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 (including evidence with a serial number) as to the cause of the plaintiff's claim, it can be acknowledged that the vehicle that the plaintiff transferred the vehicle was transferred before and after that time, the defendant acquired the vehicle around January 20, 2009.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff may request the Defendant to acquire the ownership transfer registration, except in extenuating circumstances.

A person entered in the register of automobiles as an owner may request not only the person who has taken over the said vehicle from himself (or a seller) but also the person who has taken over the said vehicle from the former transferee to accept the procedure for the registration of the transfer of ownership of the vehicle.

The interpretation of Article 12 (4) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, which provides that where a transferee of a motor vehicle has failed to file an application for the registration of transfer under paragraph (1), a transferor (referring to an owner recorded in the register at the time of the application for the registration of transfer) may apply in lieu of such transferee, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s purchase of KRW 3 million in 2009 and operation of the vehicle at the time of diving, but the number plate was old as far as it was no longer operated on the wind kept in custody, and that the custody of the number plate was too much due to the Plaintiff’s tax issues, seizure, etc. before it, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

Although the defendant demanded the vehicle seller to change the name transfer documents, it was the next day, which was eventually failed to make the registration of transfer. This is also argued that the plaintiff was the reason that the plaintiff was responsible for contact due to the suspension of prosecution.

However, as long as the defendant acquired an automobile, it is the transferee without relation to whether he currently occupies and operates the automobile.

A transferee shall be the owner entered in the original register.