1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 2004, the Defendant’s Intervenor, who is a cargo transport business entity, reverted to the Defendant’s Intervenor the title of ownership as to the instant vehicle with respect to C-SS LS truck (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with the Plaintiff’s wife, and B entered into an entrustment contract with the Defendant’s Intervenor to pay monthly rent, etc., while operating the instant vehicle upon being entrusted with the Defendant’s auxiliary intervenor’s right to operate and manage the instant vehicle.

B. The Changwon District Court Decision 2013Da2858 (Mains) and 2014Kadan194 (Counterclaim), and the Defendant’s Intervenor filed a claim against B against B to accept the transfer of ownership registration procedure for the instant vehicle on August 7, 2013 due to the termination of the above entrusted management contract. B filed a claim against the Defendant’s Intervenor for a counterclaim to implement the transfer of ownership registration procedure for the termination of the above entrusted management contract. On August 13, 2014, the judgment citing all the counterclaims of the Defendant’s Intervenor and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s main lawsuit and B became final and conclusive around that time. The reasons for the above judgment are as follows.

On October 1, 2003, the Plaintiff, the husband of B, transferred the ownership registration title of the instant vehicle between the Defendant’s Intervenor and the Defendant’s Intervenor operating and managing the instant vehicle to the Defendant’s Intervenor, and entered into an entrustment management contract with the Defendant’s Intervenor under which the Defendant’s Intervenor entrusted with the operation and management right of the instant vehicle and the Defendant’s Intervenor paid monthly admission fees, taxes and public charges, deduction contributions, insurance premium, etc., and continued to change the name of the entrustment management contract to B around April 1, 2004, the Plaintiff continued to operate the said vehicle thereafter, and the fact that the said entrustment management contract was terminated on August 7, 2013 does not conflict between the parties.

C. The plaintiff.