1. The Defendant’s ground for termination of title trust on May 7, 2015 is limited to the automobile indicated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 3, 2012, the Defendant purchased automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) around December 3, 201, and completed the ownership transfer registration in the name of the Plaintiff under an agreement with the Plaintiff.

B. From December 2013, with respect to the instant motor vehicle, the Plaintiff, who was its nominal owner, was subject to an administrative fine, the mandatory insurance fine, the automobile tax, etc. in the future.

C. On May 7, 2015, the Plaintiff, by serving the Defendant with the instant complaint, declared that he/she would accept the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Plaintiff.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1-5 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim for the acquisition of the transfer of ownership registration procedure, the Defendant trusted the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s termination of the title trust by serving the written complaint of this case. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to accept from the Plaintiff the transfer of ownership registration procedure due to the cancellation of the title trust on May 7, 2015, the delivery date of the written complaint of this case.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that since the Defendant operated the instant automobile with his own interest from December 3, 2013 to December 3, 2013, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 1,861,230 to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff did not deal with taxes and fines for negligence imposed in relation to the operation of the instant automobile, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be obliged to pay them. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,861,230 as compensation for unjust enrichment or tort.

In relation to the operation of the instant vehicle, most of the taxes and administrative fines imposed on the Plaintiff in the future have completed the registration of seizure on the instant vehicle, and the grounds for recognition of the head of the Gu: Gap evidence 2, and the Defendant in the instant case from the Plaintiff.