beta
Text
1. The defendant is based on the acquisition by transfer on May 4, 201, of the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 24, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration with respect to the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant automobiles”), and borrowed KRW 1 million from the pawne operator who is located near the Gangseo-gu Casino casino around around 2009, and offered the instant automobiles as security to the said pawne operator.
B. The Defendant, after receiving the instant vehicle from a person whose name is unknown, purchased the automobile insurance, and thereafter operated the instant vehicle from May 4, 201 to May 4, 2012.
C. Since May 4, 2011, the Plaintiff, a registered titleholder, obtained a sum of KRW 186,90,00, KRW 1,399,710, KRW 877,280, and KRW 928,180, KRW 821,80 ( KRW 106,380, KRW 821,80), which was the aggregate of KRW 3,500, before May 4, 201 (= KRW 222,300, KRW 8,900, KRW 9,900), which was the sum of KRW 1,731,00, KRW 312,00, KRW 312,00, KRW 300, KRW 400, KRW 300, KRW 308, KRW 300, KRW 200, KRW 3008, KRW 3005, KRW 200, KRW 3005, KRW 3000.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Part concerning claims for the registration of automobile ownership transfer;
A. The Defendant acquired the instant automobile on May 4, 201. As such, the Defendant was obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Plaintiff, who is the registered titleholder of the instant automobile, on the ground of the transfer of ownership on May 4, 2011. 2) The Defendant: (a) leased the instant automobile to a person whose name is unknown and returned it to the Defendant for one year; (b) there was no transfer of the instant automobile; and (c) there was no transfer of the instant automobile from the Plaintiff, who was placed in the registered titleholder of the instant automobile; and (d) there was no transfer of the instant automobile to the pawnpoer; and (b) there was no transfer of it to the pawnpoer. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s
(b).