1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The Plaintiff, as a creditor of C, filed a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit against E against the ownership of the 80-road (D; hereinafter “instant vehicle”) that is deemed to be owned by C, and revoked the automobile transaction transfer agreement concluded on August 8, 2016 between E and C. E was awarded a favorable judgment against C to the effect that “A will implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on August 8, 2016 by the receipt of the attached list,” which became final and conclusive around June 6, 2017.

(A) Around June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a final and conclusive certificate of the instant fraudulent act revocation judgment (hereinafter “instant fraudulent act revocation judgment”). Around June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared an application for the instant fraudulent act transfer registration, along with the judgment of the instant fraudulent act revocation judgment and the said final and conclusive certificate attached to the Plaintiff’s attorney-at-law, and submitted it to G who had been in charge of the registration of the instant motor vehicle at the time of the submission to G who had been in charge of the registration of the instant motor vehicle by the employee of the Defendant’s office at the time of the submission of the said application to G.

(2) However, G rejected the said application with the purport that “only an application for registration of transfer by a final judgment under the Rules on the Registration of Motor Vehicles is possible, and the registration of cancellation is not possible, and the judgment of revocation of fraudulent act in this case is purporting to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation, so it is difficult to process the said application.”

Accordingly, on June 9, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a “application for the cancellation of the registration of a motor vehicle” and submitted it to G along with the judgment on the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case (hereinafter “instant second application”); however, G rejected the said application to the effect that “the judgment on revocation of the fraudulent act does not constitute grounds for cancellation under the Motor Vehicle Management Act, such as scrapping.”

at the time.