2. Defendant C is KRW 10,000,000 and this shall apply to the Plaintiff.

A. On July 21, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased an automobile indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant automobile”) and registered the ownership of an automobile in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff left Defendant C with the instant vehicle around August 2001, but Defendant C arbitrarily disposed of the said vehicle around October 2001.

C. From the end of 2002, Defendant B occupied and used the instant vehicle.

Defendant C was convicted of a criminal offense, such as embezzlement by arbitrarily disposing of the instant vehicle owned by the Plaintiff and embezzlement around October 2001.

(Court 2004 order 345). e.

Defendant B’s fine for negligence and penalty imposed on the said motor vehicle during the period of the use of the instant motor vehicle reaches the amount equivalent to five million won.

[Grounds for Recognition: Defendant C-conscept of Confession, the fact that there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. 1) According to the facts of the recognition of the claim for the delivery of the automobile, it is recognized that the Plaintiff owned the instant automobile owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant B has the obligation to deliver the said automobile to the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff’s claim for the return of unjust enrichment (user fee) is occupying and using the instant automobile without any authority, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money calculated at the rate of KRW 350,000 per month, which is equivalent to the royalty from November 2, 2001 to the completion of delivery of the said automobile.

As long as Defendant B, without authority, refuses to hand over the Plaintiff while occupying and using the instant vehicle, the benefits acquired in the process should be returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

However, in relation to the scope of unjust enrichment, the plaintiff is seeking the rent of the automobile leasing company, and the above rent is purely driving vehicle.