1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 12, 2014, the Defendant completed the procedure for ownership transfer registration regarding the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).

B. The Plaintiff is holding the following documents:

① The Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression issued on April 28, 2014 (based on the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression) on April 28, 2014, issued on the Defendant’s name to the effect that “the Defendant received KRW 24% per annum, and KRW 5 million per maturity on July 28, 2014” ② a receipt in the name of the Defendant stating that “the Defendant received KRW 5 million on April 28, 2014 by the Defendant.”

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff offered the instant automobile as security by borrowing KRW 5 million from a person who was unaware of the name, and the Defendant was unable to repay the secured debt by July 28, 2014, and the Plaintiff was transferred the instant automobile along with the documents necessary for the transfer of the name from the person who was unaware of the name. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is liable to implement the transfer registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of transfer on July 29, 2014.

B. Therefore, the instant motor vehicle was offered as security by the Defendant, who delivered a certificate of renunciation of the motor vehicle to a person who was under the name of the deceased on April 28, 2014.

Even if such circumstance alone, it cannot be deemed that the above person without the name was holding the authority to dispose of the instant vehicle on behalf of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, it cannot be deemed that a transfer agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on July 29, 2014.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.