1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On December 31, 2010, Nonparty D, the Defendant’s children, purchased the instant motor vehicle from Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and Nonparty C, the son’s joint ownership (9% of the shares of Plaintiff (Appointed Party), 1% of the Appointed Party C) on behalf of the Defendant, in the middle and middle consignment sale of the trade name “E” located in the Gyeonggi-do Side Trading Complex on behalf of the Defendant, and the overall purport of the pleadings is recognized by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or there is no overall purport of the pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 1.

B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) on the ground of the transfer of ownership as of December 31, 2010, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. As to this, the Defendant set the transfer of ownership after the Appointor C terminated the mortgage on the instant automobile, but did not perform this, and the Defendant returned the instant automobile on consignment sale and rescinded the sales contract. Thus, the instant claim is groundless.

B. The evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1, 2, and 3 added the purport of the entire pleadings to the following: ① At the time of the sale, the mortgage was established on the instant automobile under the registration No. 15, 006236 on September 15, 2010, and the receipt number No. 00636 on the instant automobile at the time of the sale; ② the designated party C promised to terminate and terminate the said mortgage before the transfer of ownership on the instant automobile; ② the said C promised to terminate and terminate the mortgage until September 3, 2012; ② the Defendant’s agent, returned the instant vehicle to the foregoing E, and eventually, the fact that the Defendant’s agent received ls LS460 on September 17, 2012 in lieu of the return of the purchase price. In full view of these facts, the Defendant and the Plaintiffs.