1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part is all revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) although the defendant C was a person operating the automobile transaction business, it was difficult for the plaintiff to exercise the plaintiff's ownership by purchasing 7,00,000 won which is much less than the market price without confirming the actual owner of the automobile in this case, and then transferring it to a third party. Since the defendant C violated the Automobile Management Act in this process, it is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to 25,00,000 won which is the market price of the automobile in this case. 2) At the time when the defendant C's assertion of the defendant C purchased the automobile in this case from the joint defendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter "B"), the plaintiff's certificate of personal seal impression, seal imprint, and the certificate of registration of the automobile in this case was accompanied by the plaintiff's legitimate authority to sell the automobile in this case, and there was no reason to suspect that the automobile in this case was provided as security, the defendant C was not liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff.

B. Determination as to Gap evidence Nos. 10-2, 3, 4, and 4 of the evidence Nos. 10-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the plaintiff delivered his seal impression certificate, personal seal certificate, and registration certificate at the time of providing the instant motor vehicle to Eul, ② the plaintiff was participating in the sale of the instant motor vehicle to the defendant C; ③ the plaintiff had previously borrowed money after providing the instant motor vehicle as security and preparing a sales contract to the defendant C; and even at the time of June 14, 2012, the plaintiff knew that the sales contract concerning the instant motor vehicle was prepared with the seal impression certificate issued by himself and the certificate of personal seal impression.