1. The defendant is based on the sale on June 4, 2004 for the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

1. According to no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or according to the purport of subparagraph 1 of the evidence and the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff purchased a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) from Nonparty C on December 4, 2003, and fulfilled the transfer registration procedure in the name of the Plaintiff on December 4, 2003, and the fact that the Plaintiff sold the instant motor vehicle to the Defendant through D, the husband of the Defendant, around June 4, 2004.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure of the ownership transfer on June 4, 2004 with respect to the automobile of this case from the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant agreed to take over the transfer registration procedure by prior implementation or simultaneous implementation with the Plaintiff to cancel the registration of seizure, although the Defendant cannot take over the transfer registration procedure until the registration of seizure completed with respect to the instant automobile is cancelled.

In addition, the registration of seizure for reasons after June 4, 2004 among the registration of seizure of the defendant's assertion was made after the defendant acquired the motor vehicle of this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion refusing to take over the transfer of ownership is without merit, unless there are special circumstances that the defendant conditioned to cancel the above seizure registration at the time of the above sale contract.