1. The defendant is based on the transfer from the plaintiff of the motor vehicle listed in the annexed list by date in 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. On or around December 7, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) and registered as its owner until now.

B. When the Plaintiff was faced with economic difficulties around 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the instant vehicle to a nominal bondholder without a transfer registration of ownership, and borrowed KRW 3.5 million, and failed to refund the said vehicle.

C. On March 2012, the Defendant: (a) purchased the instant motor vehicle from a person with no name, and operated the relevant motor vehicle without completing transfer registration; and (b) sold the said motor vehicle again to the person with no name, around March 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the result of fact inquiry about Gwangju viewing by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) The registration of transfer of the ownership of a motor vehicle shall be applied to the Mayor/Do Governor for the registration of transfer of the ownership of the motor vehicle, and where the transferee of the motor vehicle fails to apply for the registration of transfer, the owner recorded in the register may apply for the registration of transfer in lieu of the transferee;

(1) Article 12(4) and (1) of the Automobile Management Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da11679, Aug. 23, 2012; 2011Na2633, Dec. 23, 2011; 201Da26633, Feb. 23, 201). In addition, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant automobile registry, can seek to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile against the Defendant who acquired the instant automobile by transfer of ownership.

B. First of all, the Defendant’s argument is determined on March 2013.