1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is also acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The main part of the judgment of the court of first instance - the last 2nd 2nd e.g. "24% per annum" part of the "13.27% per annum (24% per annum)", the part of the "Article 27.2 of the Motor Vehicle Registration Rules" in the third e.g. 17th e., "Article 27.3 of the Motor Vehicle Registration Rules", and the part of the "Defendant F" in the fourth e.g. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance - e. "Defendant A" respectively.

- Parts 6, 2, 7, and 4 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

B. As seen earlier, Defendant A’s new registration of the instant vehicle had been completed at the request of Defendant A in violation of the statutes. This is based on Defendant A’s negligence. However, the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the respective evidence mentioned above recognized facts, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the overall purport of oral argument, namely, Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government notified the Plaintiff that the registration of the instant vehicle will be cancelled ex officio on May 29, 2014, and notified the mortgagee pursuant to Article 6 of the Act on Mortgage over Specific Movables, such as Automobiles, etc. of the said advance notice. The Plaintiff could not file an application for the instant vehicle auction after ascertaining the location or cancellation of the registration of the instant vehicle, as seen earlier. However, the Plaintiff could not file an application for the instant vehicle auction for the purpose of executing mortgage over the instant vehicle.