1. The defendant shall deliver the vehicle listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) lent its name upon Nonparty C and D’s request; (b) purchased from Nonparty E a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”); and (c) completed the ownership transfer registration in the Defendant’s name.

B. On June 24, 2014, E, while keeping the instant vehicle, sold the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, and around that time, delivered the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff.

C. However, around November 26, 2014, C used a towing vehicle for towing and delivered the instant vehicle to the Defendant with the instant vehicle parked in the Plaintiff’s apartment parking lot without the Plaintiff’s permission.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 14, 15, and 24, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The claim for extradition C deprived of the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant automobile, and the Defendant is a malicious successor, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant automobile to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant filed for registration of transfer of ownership delegated the comprehensive authority, such as the right to sell the instant automobile, to C and D, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant automobile from C and D delegated by C and D, and the Defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership on the instant automobile. Even if it is not a domestic affairs, the Plaintiff is obliged to perform the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership on the instant automobile. Even if it is not a reasonable ground to believe that E has such authority, as the Plaintiff has a reasonable ground, the Defendant is liable for the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant automobile. Accordingly, the

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier, C’s judgment on the request for extradition was deprived of the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant automobile, and the Defendant also occupied by C using a towing vehicle at will.