1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. We examine ex officio the determination on the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership among the instant lawsuit, and since it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as a confirmation judgment to eliminate the anxiety and risk when the Plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous, it is difficult to bring a lawsuit for performance, despite the fact that filing a lawsuit for confirmation is not a final solution of a dispute, and thus, there is no benefit in confirmation, barring special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da82439 Decided March 26, 2004). The Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant automobile on the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant automobile as indicated in the Attachment (hereinafter “instant automobile”). As such, the Plaintiff may seek a final settlement of the dispute through the claim for performance of the above procedure for ownership transfer registration, there is no benefit to confirm ownership of the instant automobile separately.

Therefore, the part on confirmation of ownership in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2. Determination as to the claim for ownership transfer registration

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, around 2012, the Plaintiff had allowed the Defendant to use the instant vehicle for business purposes, only in the name of the Defendant, while purchasing the instant vehicle for business purposes.

Since the defendant retired from the plaintiff company around January 2017, the defendant should return the motor vehicle of this case to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration concerning the instant automobile to the Plaintiff.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant automobile was owned by the Plaintiff, or that the Plaintiff was a title trust of the instant automobile to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 2, 3, 5, and 6, the Defendant served in the Plaintiff Company from July 25, 201 to January 20, 2017.