1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the representative of "E" as a member of a three-dimensional net business in D, and F is the actual operator of the above "E" as the plaintiff's father.

From April 2013, Defendant B served as an employee in charge of accounting, etc. in the above “E” from around November 2013, and Defendant C is the son of Defendant B.

B. On December 17, 2014, the motor vehicle listed in the Attachment 1, which was newly registered in the G that was an employee of the said “E”, was completed in the future, and on June 2, 2017, the registration of transfer of name was completed in the future of Defendant B.

On the other hand, on November 5, 2013, 50% shares of the Defendants were newly registered on the other hand.

(hereinafter referred to as the "each of the instant vehicles" in attached Forms 1 and 2). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness G testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Each of the instant vehicles asserted by the Plaintiff is a business vehicle of the said “E”, and the Plaintiff is a vehicle that has entrusted only its ownership in the future for the convenience of management.

The plaintiff terminated each of the above title trust through the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case. The defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant vehicles to the plaintiff.

(B) The Defendants asserted that each of the instant vehicles was the actual operator of the foregoing “E” and that the Plaintiff’s denying F was donated to the Defendants in relation to Defendant B for several years).

Judgment

Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s title trust of each of the instant vehicles to the Defendants solely based on the statement of evidence No. 2 in light of health stand, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, and witness G’s testimony, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above ground of claim is without merit without examining the remainder of the claim.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's defendants.