Of the part against the Plaintiff, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court reveals the following facts.

On June 22, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant automobile.

B. On October 27, 2013, the Plaintiff’s wife E transferred the instant automobile and key to the instant vehicle and its registration certificate to D who worked for a used vehicle dealer.

C. G, which operated a motor vehicle trading company with the trade name “F”, completed the transfer of ownership on October 28, 2013 with respect to the instant motor vehicle, and the Defendant, the head of G, as the instant motor vehicle, occupies the instant motor vehicle after completing the transfer of ownership on February 3, 2014.

2. On the grounds of the Defendant’s ground of appeal, based on the aforementioned factual basis, the lower court determined that the transfer registration of ownership on the instant motor vehicle under G name was based on the certificate of transfer of a motor vehicle without any evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and that there was no other sales contract between the Plaintiff and G with respect to the instant motor vehicle, and thus, the registration of transfer of ownership in the G name and the transfer of ownership in the Defendant’s name based thereon was null and void, and therefore, the Defendant was liable to implement the transfer registration procedure and deliver the instant motor vehicle to the Plaintiff on the ground of

Furthermore, D has the authority to act on behalf of the Plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion that D is responsible for expressive representation to the plaintiff even if D did not have legitimate power of representation.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is so decided as per the ground of appeal.