1. The Defendant is based on the agreement on September 2, 2014 with respect to each motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract between C and C to transfer the automobile maintenance business part of the Defendant Company’s business to C in the amount of KRW 450 million. On August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff registered C as a joint representative director of the Defendant Company, and transferred 51% of the shares of the Defendant Company to C.

B. After that, on September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the part of the freight transport business among the businesses of the Defendant Company to C, and entered into a transfer or acquisition agreement with the Defendant Company on the part of the freight transport business (hereinafter “Agreement on September 2, 2014”), and each of the automobiles listed in the separate sheet, which is owned by the Defendant Company, at the time of the said agreement, is referred to as “each of the instant automobiles.”

) agreed to transfer his ownership to the Plaintiff. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 6 (including each number, witness D, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for each of the instant automobiles to the Plaintiff on September 2, 2014.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that since C, who was in imminent conditions due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of contract, was deceiving the Plaintiff and entered into an agreement on September 2, 2014, the above agreement remains effective. However, the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant is insufficient to recognize the above assertion, and the above assertion is difficult to accept, as there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.