1. All appeals by the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the designated parties are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Plaintiff.

1. Around May 2012, the fact that D, the Defendant’s decision on the cause of the claim, on behalf of the Defendant, purchased the instant automobile in the purchase price of KRW 48 million (hereinafter “instant contract”) from the Plaintiff and the Appointor, a joint ownership of the Plaintiff and the Appointor (9% Plaintiff’s equity interest, 1% of the Appointor’s equity interest) in the middle of the trade name “E” located in the Gyeonggi Bupyeong Trading Complex on behalf of the Defendant, and that it was recognized by considering the entire purport of the pleadings as a whole in the statement in the evidence No. 1.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure of the ownership transfer on the instant motor vehicle from the plaintiff and the selector, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. At the time of the contract of this case, the Defendant’s assertion that the automobile of this case was established at the time of the contract of this case was cancelled, and the Defendant agreed to pay the remainder and transfer ownership. However, since the Plaintiff and the designated person did not cancel the said mortgage, the Defendant returned the automobile of this case on consignment sale and cancelled the sales contract, the Plaintiff and the designated person’s claim is without merit.

B. In full view of the purport of the argument as a result of the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the fact-finding conducted on the leisure market of the court of first instance, the mortgage was established on September 15, 2010, and the defendant's son and the son paid KRW 38 million out of the price of the instant automobile at the time of conclusion of the instant contract, in consideration of the above mortgage at the time of conclusion of the instant contract, and agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 15 million upon cancellation of the said mortgage. However, the above mortgage was not cancelled, but the appointee left Korea from a foreign country, and the plaintiff was unaware of whom the appointee sold the instant automobile to anyone on or around July 2012.