1. The defendant shall deliver the vehicle listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Facts of recognition

On September 24, 2012, the Plaintiffs purchased automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) and completed the transfer registration of ownership on the instant automobiles by designating the Plaintiffs as joint owners.

(A) On January 7, 2013, the Defendant, who had engaged in the automobile siren business, completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant automobile, and changed the registration number as shown in the separate sheet. At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, in the name of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, prepared a certificate of automobile transfer and the power of attorney for the registration of the instant automobile, and accompanied by the Plaintiffs’ certificate of personal seal impression.

However, the plaintiffs did not have concluded a sales contract with the defendant for the motor vehicle of this case, and the plaintiffs' seals affixed with the above certificate of transfer of motor vehicle and the power of attorney for registration of motor vehicle are not based on the plaintiffs' seal imprint certificate.

On July 10, 2014, the registration of the name of the defendant with respect to the instant motor vehicle was cancelled ex officio on the ground of revocation of the defendant's license.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1, and as a result of appraiser D's seal appraisal and supplementary appraisal, the above fact of recognition is that the sales contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant as to the automobile of this case is null and void. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above automobile to the plaintiffs as owner of the automobile of this case.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the defendant entered into a sales contract for the automobile of this case in a normal manner with E, which is the representative of the plaintiffs, and paid the purchase price, but there is no evidence to prove that E had the power to represent the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant's above assertion

In conclusion, it is decided as per Disposition by admitting the primary claim of the plaintiffs on the grounds of its merit.