1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) Daegu Metropolitan City with respect to motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet;

1. The fact that the Defendant completed the procedure for registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) as stated in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) as stated in the summary of the instant case, as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, and possessed it until now does not have any dispute between the parties.

The Plaintiff completed the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile without agreement with the intention to enter into the sales contract, and delivered it, and sought the payment of damages and consolation money equivalent to the depreciation cost due to the illegal delivery of the instant automobile and the cancellation of the transfer registration procedure.

On the other hand, the defendant argued that the transfer registration of ownership in this case was made in accordance with due process, and the plaintiff did not sell a vehicle to a third party because the plaintiff caused the reason that the plaintiff caused the preservation disposition on the motor vehicle of this case as the right to preserve the principal claim as a counterclaim, and sought the payment of consolation money due to the defendant's damage equivalent to the decline in the value and the plaintiff's complaint, etc.

2. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case is the developments leading up to the instant transfer of ownership registration procedure, as revealed by the party’s assertion of the key issue, and the following facts can be acknowledged in light of Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 through 11, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the pleadings.

1) Around December 2013, D, the husband of the Plaintiff, registered the instant vehicle as the instant vehicle in the “E”, which is a trading site of the Internet, around December 2, 2013. (2) D used a phone call to the effect that, around December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) “I wish to buy the instant vehicle in KRW 32.5 million” from a person who was unaware of the name, who was on the part of the business owner of the Plaintiff; (b) had a high-speed company in cooperation with the Gu and there was a high-speed company to display the test to send the person and

3..