1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the transfer of ownership on November 13, 2003 with respect to the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).

B. On June 2004, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5 million from an unregistered lender, and prepared a certificate of renunciation of vehicle and a letter of delegation of vehicle transfer as security for the above loan obligation, and delivered it to the lender.

C. On December 20, 2008, the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle from C and sold it to others.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition】: Evidence Nos. 3-12 and 5-12; purport of the whole pleadings

2. On December 20, 2008, the Plaintiff asserts that, even if the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle from C on or around December 20, 2008, the Plaintiff is operating the instant vehicle without completing the transfer registration procedure in its name, and as such, the Plaintiff is imposing taxes, public charges, and administrative fines on the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obliged to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff on December 20, 208.

In order for the Plaintiff to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant motor vehicle against the Defendant, it should be recognized that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a legal act that may cause the acquisition of ownership, such as the sale and purchase of the instant motor vehicle, or that an agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and all the persons involved in the process of distributing the instant motor vehicle from the Plaintiff to the Defendant regarding the transfer registration for the transfer of ownership in the form of intermediate omission registration.

However, even if the plaintiff's assertion is based on the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff left the automobile of this case as security to the lending company, and there was no legal act between the plaintiff and the defendant that could cause the acquisition of ownership, such as a direct sales contract, and the plaintiff also.