1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant motor vehicle, the ownership transfer registration of which was completed on September 29, 2000 with respect to the instant motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).

B. The Defendant is a person who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with a named insured worker C from December 20, 2007 to December 20, 2008, and from December 20, 2008 to December 20, 2009, to which the named insured worker is the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around September 2001, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5 million from the credit service provider on the instant vehicle as collateral and delivered the instant vehicle. Since then, the credit service provider under his name was forced to contact, and the location of the instant vehicle became unknown. 2) However, in light of the fact that the Defendant concluded the instant automobile insurance contract from December 20, 2007, it is deemed that the Defendant acquired and operated the instant automobile, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to take over the liability of the Plaintiff for the payment of the administrative fine, tax and public dues imposed on the instant automobile after the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership and around December 17, 2007.

B. The summary of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant only purchased the automobile insurance under the name of the defendant and paid the insurance premium on behalf of the defendant upon request by the husband C before the divorce, and the defendant did not acquire or operate the automobile of this case.

C. If the transferee of the vehicle does not transfer the registered title while the transferee received the vehicle from the transferor, the transferor may seek against the transferee the procedure for accepting the transfer of ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da2949 delivered on April 22, 2003, etc.). However, in this case, the Plaintiff borrowed money from a credit service provider under his name to a credit service provider, and the Plaintiff is authorized to dispose of the instant automobile.