1. The Defendant, from the Plaintiff, entered into a title trust agreement on January 31, 2016 on each of the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2.

Facts of recognition

The Defendant purchased each motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “motor vehicle Nos. 1 through 3 of this case”) and agreed with the Plaintiff to have only the registered name in the Plaintiff’s name.

On August 11, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Plaintiff on the instant automobiles No. 1, and on August 19, 2010, on the instant automobiles No. 2 and 3 under the name of the Plaintiff.

The third motor vehicle of this case was scrapped on September 24, 2013, and the registration of transfer of ownership was cancelled ex officio on September 30, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including partial Nos. 1, 3), and the fact that the judgment on the whole purport of the pleading Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is judged, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a title trust agreement on the motor vehicles of this case Nos. 1 and 2, and on the other hand, the fact that the copy of the complaint of this case stating the plaintiff's declaration of termination of the title trust agreement was delivered to the defendant on January 31, 201

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to take over from the Plaintiff the transfer of ownership registration procedure based on the termination of the title trust agreement as of January 31, 2016 with respect to each of the instant vehicles Nos. 1 and 2.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the automobiles Nos. 1 and 2 of this case are not owned by the defendant and cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, such circumstance alone does not make the defendant be obliged to take over the transfer of ownership registration procedure. Thus, the defendant'

The fact that the third automobile of this case was already scrapped on September 30, 2013 and the registration of cancellation was completed on September 30, 2013 is as seen earlier. Thus, the defendant's obligation to take over the transfer of ownership registration procedure was impossible. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the third automobile of this case is without merit.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition.