1. The defendant is based on an agreement from the plaintiff on the transfer of the motor vehicle stated in the separate sheet by date in the annexed sheet.

1. In full view of the facts of recognition and determination as Gap evidence No. 1, and the fact-finding on the place of business registration of Pyeongtaek-si in this court, the plaintiff had a personal seal impression and identification card affixed to a person under his/her name, and thereafter, the plaintiff was registered as the owner of the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the instant motor vehicle"), and it is recognized that the defendant transferred the instant motor vehicle from Eul to May 2013, after being transferred from April 2012 to May 2013.

Meanwhile, Article 12(1) of the Automobile Management Act provides that "a person who acquires a registered automobile shall file an application for the registration of transfer of ownership with the Mayor/Do Governor," and Article 12(4) of the same Act provides that "if a person who has acquired a motor vehicle fails to file an application for the registration of transfer of ownership, a transferor (referring to an owner recorded in the register at the time of the application for the registration of transfer of ownership) may file an application on behalf of the transferee." Thus, a person registered as an owner in the register of motor vehicle may seek the registration of transfer of ownership against not only the person who

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da11679 Decided August 23, 2012, and Suwon District Court Decision 201Na26633 Decided December 23, 201, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant acquired the instant vehicle from a third party. As such, the Plaintiff, the owner of which was the original registry, may seek to accept the procedure for ownership transfer registration against the Defendant, the transferee.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that C only purchased the insurance policy and did not acquire the instant vehicle, and that it transferred D from the end of May 2013, but the defendant's assertion is recognized.