2...

1. Basic facts

A. On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff indicated C’s “franchise” and remitted KRW 8 million under the Plaintiff’s name, KRW 1,50,000,000,000 to C; on May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff indicated “Detailed fish contract” and remitted KRW 10,000,000 on May 5, 2016, KRW 17,000,000,000 on May 7, 2016; KRW 9.5 million on May 11, 2016; KRW 1,237,00 in the Plaintiff’s name; and KRW 2,50,00,00 in the Plaintiff’s name and KRW 2,50,00.

B. From August 2017 to November 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the said vehicle that C paid the transfer cost to the Defendant for the vehicle purchased by the Plaintiff.

C. Around January 22, 2016, Defendant and C purchased Ecuas D vehicles with the purchase price of KRW 3 million for Ecuas D and E vehicles with the purchase price of KRW 7.5 million on February 4, 2016, respectively, and C paid the purchase price of KRW 7.5 million and registered the name of the vehicle in the name of the Plaintiff.

Around July 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the return of KRW 19 million for the pre-paid vehicle (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2018Gadan128910). Around July 2018, the Defendant filed a claim against C to pay KRW 15 million for the purchase price of the instant vehicle against C (=3 million + 7.5 million +) as the person who is liable for the payment of KRW 10.5 million for the instant vehicle against C, and filed a claim for payment of KRW 93.5 million for the remainder (=1.9 million - 15 million).

E. In the above lawsuit, C accepted all the Defendant’s claims, and around May 29, 2019, C rendered a decision of recommending reconciliation that paid KRW 93.5 million to the Defendant, which became final and conclusive around June 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1, 7, 9 through 11, and the fact inquiry reply to the chief of the vehicle registration office at the request of this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings.