1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is cited.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into an agreement with the Defendant to obtain a permit for trucking transport business separately from the transfer of ownership of the instant automobile according to the completion of the instant conciliation, and paid the Defendant the transfer price of KRW 3,200,000 to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the registration license plate for trucking transport business prior to the said permit.

3. The registration number of each plate shall be assigned to the Mayor/Do governor for the management of the automobile in accordance with the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the registration number plate marked with the registration number shall be merely the sign affixed and sealed on the automobile, so it shall not be decided whether to transfer it according to the intention of the land owner or

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da737 Decided April 26, 2013). However, in relation to the permission for trucking transport business, it cannot be denied that there is a commercial practice in which the current registration number of the motor vehicle or the registration number plate itself is traded by the means of the transfer of the right to permission, but the change, revocation, and transfer of the transport business under the provisions of the current Trucking Transport Business Act, which adopts the permission system, can only be done through the disposition of the competent administrative agency, and it cannot be done through private contracts between the parties, such as the transfer of the number plate itself.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the allegation itself to separately seek delivery of only a registration number plate against the defendant, while the plaintiff, a local owner, takes over the ownership of the motor vehicle from the defendant, a local owner, on the ground of the termination of the entrusted management contract.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is this.