1. The Defendants caused the termination of the title trust agreement with respect to the automobiles listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. The facts that there is no dispute over recognition, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9, the following facts: ① on May 8, 2014 with respect to automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "automobile of this case") registered as joint owners on May 8, 2014, ② the purchase price of the automobile of this case was paid by the plaintiff, ③ the deceased on August 6, 2015, ③ the deceased on August 6, 2015, and the Defendants were the successors.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant motor vehicle is actually owned by the Plaintiff, and that only 1% of the shares owned by the Plaintiff was registered in the name of the network E, which is the Plaintiff’s server. The Plaintiff sought registration of ownership transfer against the Defendants, the heir of the network E, on the ground of termination of title trust.

B. Considering the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff paid all the purchase price of the instant vehicle as seen above; and (b) the Plaintiff appears to have no dispute over the ownership issue of the instant vehicle before the deceased’s death, it is reasonable to deem that the instant automobile is in fact owned by the Plaintiff; (b) it was a title trust to the deceased E with respect to 1% of its equity interest.

Therefore, according to the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the title trust, the Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the termination of title trust with respect to the instant automobile.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.