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

3...

A. On November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C Co., Ltd. on movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) and was handed over on November 29, 2016.

B. On June 10, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a settlement agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant, stating that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay goods to the Defendant for goods was totaled KRW 48,005,727.

C. Around August 2017, the Plaintiff offered that the Plaintiff would settle the price of goods by receiving KRW 5,000,000 from the Defendant and transferring the ownership of the instant truck to the Defendant, and by accepting the installment payment as to the instant truck.

Around August 26, 2017, the Defendant’s employee E sent a text message to the Plaintiff stating that “I cannot have the obligation to pay for the instant vehicle,” and that “I will have our own for the purpose of preserving the claim,” on September 7, 2017.”

The machinery of this case from around that time to the date of closing argument of this case is occupied by the defendant.

E. On May 29, 2018, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of KRW 48,005,727 for the price of goods and the delay damages therefor (Seoul District Court Decision 2018Guj796), and filed an objection against the Plaintiff, but on June 26, 2019, the Defendant rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 48,005,727 and the delay damages therefrom” (the foregoing court Decision 2018Da7409).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant vehicle, is the Civil Act.