1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall deliver the vehicle indicated in the attached Form to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

2. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 27, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership on the instant motor vehicle as Yongama Military Automobile Registration Office B received.

B. As of the date of closing argument of the instant case, the Defendant occupied the instant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the instant motor vehicle to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant occupies the instant motor vehicle owned by the Plaintiff without any justifiable title. 2) The Defendant, as a counterclaim, concluded a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff on September 27, 201, and completed the ownership transfer registration in the name of the Plaintiff, on the grounds that the Defendant entered into a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant motor vehicle owned by the Defendant, and completed the ownership transfer registration in the name of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the said title trust agreement is terminated by delivery of a duplicate of the instant counterclaim, and accordingly, the Plaintiff is obligated to implement

B. The common issues between the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim of this case are "whether the Defendant entered into a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff as alleged in the claim," and the evidence Nos. 1 and 6 cannot be used as evidence since each authenticity is not acknowledged, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is difficult to view that the Defendant entered into a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff with respect to the instant automobile as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to support the Defendant's assertion.

Meanwhile, since the fact that the Plaintiff was registered as the owner in the original register of the instant vehicle is as seen earlier, the owner of the instant vehicle is presumed to be the Plaintiff (the legal doctrine on the presumption of real estate ownership transfer registration may also be applied to the instant case. Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013, etc.).