1. The defendant is based on the transfer of the motor vehicle stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiffs on February 9, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 20, 2001, the Plaintiffs completed the ownership transfer registration with respect to the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).

B. On November 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed money from a person with poor name to offer the instant vehicle as security; and (b) delivered the instant vehicle to the person with poor name along with all documents related to the transfer of the instant vehicle.

C. The Plaintiff was unable to repay the borrowed money to the person who was in default of the above name within the due date.

The Defendant concluded each automobile insurance contract with the East Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. from February 9, 2015 to May 9, 2015, and from May 9, 2015 to August 9, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and fact-finding results to the head of Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The transferee of a motor vehicle registered as to the cause of claim shall file an application with the Mayor/Do governor for the registration of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle (Article 12(1) of the Automobile Management Act); where the transferee of a motor vehicle intends to transfer the motor vehicle again to a third party, he/she shall file an application for the registration of transfer in his/her name (Article 12(3) of the Automobile Management Act); where the transferee of a motor vehicle fails to file an application for the registration of transfer as above, the transferor (referring to the owner recorded in the register at the time of applying for the registration of transfer) in lieu of such transferee (Article 12(4) of the Automobile Management Act); and where a person registered as an owner in the motor vehicle register is not only the transferee of the motor vehicle directly from

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da11679 Decided August 23, 2012). According to this case’s health class and the above facts recognized, the Defendant is the Defendant.