1. The Defendant’s ground for termination of title trust on October 11, 2017, on the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around April 19, 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the automobiles listed in the separate sheet in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) in the name of the car sales staff and the Plaintiff, accompanying the Plaintiff to the Ddac in the Dong-gu Seoul metropolitan area.

B. The buyer of the above sales contract and the title holder of the installment loan of the instant vehicle all are the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff does not operate a motor vehicle or exercise ownership.

From the beginning, installment loans were used by the defendant, and the management and disposal of the automobile of this case were determined and managed by the defendant.

C. The instant automobile registered in the name of the Plaintiff was subject to a seizure disposition following a large number of fines for negligence in arrears.

Currently, the location of a motor vehicle is unknown.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to take over from the plaintiff the transfer registration procedure on the instant motor vehicle due to the termination of title trust on the date of service of the copy of the complaint of this case.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim to accept the plaintiff's claim to accept the transfer of ownership and the transfer of ownership is not acceptable, although he had tried to accept the plaintiff's name in his name at the time of criminal trial due to fraud.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant's proposal to transfer ownership was rejected by the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff.

(A) It is difficult for the Plaintiff to easily understand that the Plaintiff intended to maintain the registration of ownership of the instant vehicle, even if the Defendant’s assertion was true, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was in fact at the time.