1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 23, 2011, C completed the transfer of ownership on an automobile listed in the separate sheet in the name of her mother (hereinafter “instant automobile”) under the name of her mother, and the Defendant completed the transfer of ownership on February 18, 2013 in the name of the Defendant.

B. On December 6, 2013, Jeju City stated “A vehicle reported as an illegal motor vehicle (tentatively named motor vehicle) at the owner’s request” in the instant motor vehicle register.

C. On June 24, 2014, C sold the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s agent, and around that time, C transferred the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff.

B. The plaintiff, the defendant and C are as follows.

On November 26, 2014, the dispute over the reasons stated in the port was continued, and the defendant brought the instant motor vehicle to the automobile by using towing vehicles without the plaintiff's permission, and around that time, he occupied the instant motor vehicle from around to August 14, 2017.

E. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to order the implementation of the procedures for delivery and ownership transfer registration of the instant vehicle with the Cheongju District Court Cheongju District Court 2016Na10316, Sept. 24, 2016, the Cheongju District Court citing the Plaintiff’s request for extradition on December 24, 2015. However, the Cheongju District Court 2015 rendered a judgment dismissing the request for the performance of the procedures for ownership transfer registration (case No. 2014Kadan5278), and the said judgment was finalized on September 24, 2016 at the Cheongju District Court 2016.

F. On August 14, 2017, Jeju City received delivery of the instant motor vehicle from the Defendant on the grounds of the delinquency in payment of local taxes, etc., and conducted a public auction procedure for the said motor vehicle, but the said procedure was conducted on December 18, 2017.

The instant motor vehicle was returned to the Plaintiff according to the final judgment of the claim.

[Ground of recognition] The court's significant facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

1. (f) The entry into this subsection.