1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiff asserted by the plaintiff, sold the motor vehicle indicated in the attached Form to the defendant, and the defendant has not yet accepted the transfer registration procedure.

In addition, although the defendant argued that he did not purchase the above automobile from the plaintiff, since the title holder of the automobile insurance contract for the above automobile has been the defendant since 2010 to the present date, the actual owner who has the intention to own and operate the above automobile shall be the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the above automobile from the plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion did not have purchased or transferred a motor vehicle indicated in the attached Form from the plaintiff, and was lent a credit card to the non-party C upon the husband's request, but it did not operate the motor vehicle because it became the title holder of the insurance contract for the above motor vehicle.

Judgment

In this regard, it is difficult to recognize that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff sold the motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet to the Defendant on May 12, 2003 (In light of the evidence No. 1 of this case, according to the record No. 1 of this case, it can be recognized that the above motor vehicle has been registered more than 100 items from around 2005 to the present time. The above motor vehicle is distributed in the name of one motor vehicle) and even if the Defendant is the title holder of the above motor vehicle insurance contract from July 28, 2010 to July 28, 2016, it is difficult to recognize that it is the actual owner of the above motor vehicle.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(1) According to the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should be held liable as the nominal name, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant had purchased the vehicle in its name, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it).