1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 3, 2010, Nonparty A submitted a copy of Nonparty Company’s business registration certificate, certificate of corporate seal impression, and certificate of automobile transfer in the name of Nonparty Company, which is a document necessary for Nonparty A’s registration of transfer of ownership of Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”), which is owned by Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co.”), and sold the instant automobile at KRW 63 million following May 4, 2010 on the following day after completing the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) with respect to the instant automobile by forging the registration certificate as to the instant automobile, and submitting it to the public official in charge of the registration of the name transfer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

A around that time, the Plaintiff paid the above KRW 63 million to A, and completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant automobile.

B. On May 17, 2010, the Plaintiff sold the instant automobile to Nonparty B and C.

However, the Defendant, on May 19, 2010, known to B and C that the ownership transfer registration of the instant motor vehicle constitutes “where the instant motor vehicle is registered by speed or other unlawful means,” and that it is subject to ex officio cancellation under Article 13(3) and (4) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff recovered the instant motor vehicle from B and C on June 16, 2010 and completed its registration of transfer in the future.

C. After that, the non-party company filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff A, B, and C seeking the cancellation of each ownership transfer registration of the instant motor vehicle (Seoul Central District Court 201Da22403) and received a favorable judgment on November 10, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 1, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 4, 8, 9, Gap's 15-1, 3, Eul's 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The public official in charge of the registration of the Plaintiff’s name of the automobile is ordinary.