1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the transfer of ownership on October 1, 2014 with respect to the instant automobile.

B. On December 2014, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5 million from the credit service provider and delivered the instant automobile to the credit service provider to secure the payment of the said borrowed amount.

C. On August 30, 2015, while operating the instant vehicle, the Defendant was bound to be in violation of signalling, and was subject to an automobile accident on January 17, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, fact-finding to the head of Incheon Training Police Station, fact-finding results to Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around December 2014, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5 million from the credit service provider to secure the payment of the borrowed money; (b) delivered all documents necessary for the disposal of the instant automobile to the credit service provider; and (c) delivered the instant automobile.

Although the Plaintiff intended to repay the borrowed money and refund the instant vehicle after the maturity date, it was impossible to find the whereabouts of the credit service provider.

The Defendant’s operation of the instant motor vehicle is in violation of signalling and is also subject to the accident of the instant motor vehicle. As such, the Defendant can be deemed to have acquired the instant motor vehicle from June 15, 2015.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 12(4) of the Automobile Management Act, the defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the transfer of ownership on June 15, 2015.

B. As seen earlier, the fact that the Defendant operated the instant motor vehicle from June 15, 2015 to January 17, 2016 is recognized.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant, beyond the fact that the Defendant occupied and operated the instant automobile, was "acquisition" on the premise of transfer of ownership.

Therefore, insofar as there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant acquired the instant motor vehicle, the instant motor vehicle is temporarily located.