1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 73,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 1, 2011 to April 17, 2012.

1. The facts subsequent to the underlying facts are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 8, 9, and 1.

A. On May 3, 2010, Nonparty A submitted a copy of Nonparty Company’s business registration certificate, certificate of corporate seal impression, and certificate of automobile transfer in the name of Nonparty Company, which is a document necessary for Nonparty A’s registration of transfer of ownership of Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant automobile”), which is owned by Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co.”), and sold the instant automobile at KRW 73 million following May 4, 2010 on the following day after completing the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) with respect to the instant automobile by forginging the registration certificate on the instant automobile, and submitting it to the public official in charge of the affairs pertaining to the registration of the name of the Defendant’s vehicle.

around that time, the Plaintiff paid the above KRW 73 million to A, and completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant automobile.

B. On May 17, 2010, the Plaintiff sold the instant automobile to Nonparty B and C.

However, the Defendant, on May 19, 2010, known to B and C that the ownership transfer registration of the instant motor vehicle constitutes “where the instant motor vehicle is registered by speed or other unlawful means,” and that it is subject to ex officio cancellation under Article 13(3) and (4) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff recovered the instant motor vehicle from B and C on June 16, 2010 and completed its registration of transfer in the future.

C. After that, the Nonparty Company filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, B, and C seeking the cancellation of each ownership transfer registration of the instant motor vehicle (Seoul Central District Court 201Gadan22403) and rendered a favorable judgment on November 10, 201, and became final and conclusive on December 1, 2011.

2. The parties' assertion

A. A’s public official who is in charge of the registration of the Plaintiff’s name of motor vehicle shall not exercise due diligence.