A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) around the beginning of June 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with the Defendant for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the said truck to the Plaintiff at the expiration of three years (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (b) the Plaintiff operated the said truck without receiving benefits from June 16, 2015 to November 16, 2017 under the instant agreement; (c) in so doing, the Defendant violated the said agreement by disposing of the said truck on the other hand on November 16, 2017; (d) thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the instant truck’s intermediate price or the amount equivalent to the wage during the said operation period.

B. The written evidence of No. 1 and No. 4 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant agreement, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 1, the Defendant loaned KRW 25,000,000 to the Plaintiff and C on May 2, 2012, and the Defendant determined that the maturity of KRW 5,000,000 out of the said money at the time shall be paid in installments on August 30, 2012, with the maturity of KRW 1,00,000,000 on August 30, 2012.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff and C’s loan obligation are presumed to be a divided debt under the Civil Act, and the repayment ratio is presumed to be the same. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant an amount equivalent to half of the above amount.

The plaintiff defense that C paid a full amount of KRW 25 million to the defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the above defense is without merit.

Therefore, with respect to the Defendant KRW 12,50,000 and KRW 2,500,000 from August 31, 2012, the following day following the above repayment period, and KRW 10,000.