1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the cause of claim;

A. On March 26, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased an automobile listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobile”) from C through the Internet site in KRW 3 million, and operated without registering the transfer of ownership, and sold the instant automobile to the Defendant via the Internet site around April 30, 2010, and around that time, the Plaintiff handed over the instant automobile.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Plaintiff on April 30, 2010.

B. In addition, while the Defendant operated the instant vehicle, but did not accept the transfer registration procedure, thereby imposing automobile tax and administrative fine on the Plaintiff. The sum of automobile tax and administrative fine imposed on the Plaintiff after April 30, 2010 is KRW 3,613,900.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above 3,613,90 won and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. According to the results of the fact-finding on the Daejeon District Police Chief of the Daejeon District Court, the Defendant was imposed an administrative fine on August 9, 2013 due to the failure to comply with the instant signal operation (Direction, etc.) while operating the instant vehicle on August 9, 2013.

However, it is difficult to conclude that the above facts and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone constituted a juristic act that could constitute a cause for the acquisition of ownership, such as a direct sales contract, with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to support that the Defendant acquired the instant automobile from

B. As seen earlier, insofar as it cannot be acknowledged that the Defendant’s obligation to register the transfer of ownership is premised on the existence of a sales contract or acquisition agreement as of April 30, 2010, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have the obligation to pay fines for negligence and automobile tax as other damages for nonperformance of the obligation to register

C. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.