1. The defendant completed on October 20, 2009 as to the motor vehicles listed in the attached list A (Additional No. B) by the plaintiff.

1. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the instant motor vehicle") in the name of October 20, 209, the name of D on June 4, 2013, and each transfer of ownership registration procedure was completed on May 22, 2014 in the name of the plaintiff on May 20, 209. As to the instant motor vehicle, the mortgage was established on October 20, 209 with the mortgagee, the debtor, the bond price of the defendant C, the bond price of 14,00,000 won (hereinafter "the mortgage of this case"), and each of the claims secured against the defendant of the instant motor vehicle C on August 23, 2012 are recognized to have been repaid, the defendant is obligated to perform the mortgage of this case as of this case.

2. On August 23, 2012, after the Defendant’s assertion and the judgment as to the Defendant’s obligation to C, delivered documents necessary for the cancellation of the mortgage of this case to C, and delivered documents necessary for the cancellation of the mortgage of this case to reissue documents for the cancellation of the mortgage of this case, C’s consent is required and C’s family does not consent. In order to cancel the mortgage of this case, C’s claim must be made to C and it is unreasonable to claim to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff may seek a performance of the procedure for cancellation of the mortgage of this case’s ownership of the

As such, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.