1. The plaintiff, defendant B, and defendant B

A. On September 12, 2013, the Cheongju viewing of the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet is completed as of September 12, 2013.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. In summary 1 of the parties’ assertion, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant vehicle, left the instant vehicle to the Private Village F, and F left the instant vehicle to G who operated the vehicle dealer at the time. G sells without authority the instant vehicle to the Defendant C and completed the ownership transfer registration on September 5, 2013. Therefore, since the ownership transfer registration of the instant vehicle completed by Defendant C is null and void, it is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration. 2) Defendant C’s vehicle was acquired in the name of the Plaintiff, the disabled, in the name of the Plaintiff, and was practically disposed of to F.

F delegated the instant vehicle disposal authority to G. Accordingly, G sold the instant vehicle to Defendant C, and Defendant C’s transfer of ownership on the instant vehicle is lawful.

B. In light of the following facts or circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant C have lawfully completed the registration of transfer in the name of Defendant C by selling the instant vehicle to the Defendant C by taking into account the following facts or circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts that there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul 1, 2, 4, and 6, the witness G’s testimony, the witness F’s testimony, and the entire purport of the argument as to the Plaintiff’s personal examination. It is reasonable to deem that G delegated the instant vehicle by the F having the authority to substantially dispose of the instant vehicle to have completed the registration of transfer in the name of Defendant C by selling the instant vehicle to the Defendant

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

① It is reasonable to view that the instant vehicle was acquired in the name of the Plaintiff, who is a disabled person, on September 27, 2008, by the F, in substance in the process of purchasing the instant vehicle and bearing the price, and that F had the power to dispose of the vehicle while actually owning it.

The witness F bears part of the testimony against this.