1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs asserted around May 20, 2010 entered into a sales contract with the defendant with the purchase price of 4 million won as to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet, and deliver the said motor vehicle at the same time with the payment of the purchase price and deliver all the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership. Thus, the defendant is obligated to take over the transfer of ownership as stated in the plaintiffs' claim.

2. It is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that a sales contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant for motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet was concluded, solely on the basis of the records of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(E) In light of the aforementioned evidence’s purport, the Plaintiffs offered the said vehicle as security to a third party, other than the Defendant, around May 20, 2010, and the registration of seizure was completed at the time, and the said vehicle was distributed and operated in large-lanes without transfer of ownership, while the said registration was not revoked thereafter, it is recognized that the said vehicle was the Defendant at the time of traffic accidents, etc. around 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.