1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Although the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle and intended to register transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff, it cannot be registered as a tax issue of the Plaintiff at the time, the Plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant, and completed the transfer of ownership in the name

The Plaintiff terminates the title trust by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration, such as the purport of the claim concerning the instant vehicle, to the Plaintiff.

2. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the title trust of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the statement No. 3 and the purport of the entire argument in the testimony of the witness B, the fact that, at the time of entering into an agreement to transfer or take over the Plaintiff corporation on March 6, 2013, the former representative director B and C, the current representative director, the Plaintiff corporation, is occupying and using the instant vehicle; however, on the premise that the instant vehicle is not the property that actually belongs to the Plaintiff corporation, it can only be recognized that C may purchase the instant vehicle separately from the Defendant, except for the instant vehicle explicitly, in case where C wishes to purchase it.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.