1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.

3.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 28, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration under its name with respect to the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).

B. The Defendant entered into an automobile insurance contract with ELA Insurance Co., Ltd., which set the insurance period from December 12, 2006 to June 12, 2007 with respect to the instant automobile.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, fact inquiry results on the public market in the first instance court's public market, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased the automobile of this case at the request of the plaintiff's obligee, and immediately delivered the automobile of this case to the above party's name in return for the payment of the installment. The defendant purchased the automobile of this case from the above person's name in return for the above name in return or the transferee around December 12, 2006. The defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to take over the transfer of ownership registration procedure for the automobile of this case from the plaintiff on December 12, 2006.

B. In light of the judgment, the person recorded on the car register as the owner can seek the procedure for the transfer of ownership on the automobile from the person who directly acquired the automobile by him or the person who entrusted the sale to him, as well as from the former transferee, to take over the transfer of ownership on the automobile from the former transferee. However, even according to the plaintiff's assertion, even if the plaintiff's claim was based on the plaintiff's assertion, the fine for negligence was imposed after the delivery of the automobile, and the contact was interrupted while the plaintiff refused to return the automobile, but the return was requested, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff delegated the sale to the above person who was not the plaintiff or that the automobile was directly transferred