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

A. On December 19, 2014, the Defendant agreed to enter into a financial lease agreement (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) with respect to the FSI Quat Vehicle (Annual: 2010; hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) between IMW Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-M2”) on the following occasions:

1) Term of contract: 48 months of maturity: Amount applied for a financial loan on December 17, 2018: Amount paid every month: 2,287,389 won;

B. The Defendant received and operated the instant vehicle around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, entry of Eul evidence 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On August 18, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant vehicle on condition that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 32 million among the instant vehicle at the time (i.e., KRW 110 million among the vehicle at the time - the remaining lease principal of KRW 79 million), and received the instant vehicle by paying the amount equivalent to KRW 32 million to the Defendant.

Although the Plaintiff requested the succession of the instant lease contract to the social finance IMB wave, the instant lease contract continued to be maintained in the name of the Defendant due to the delay in the approval procedure due to the Plaintiff’s credit rating problems.

The Defendant stated that “if the lease succession is the same as that of the vehicle, the vehicle shall be sold,” and the Plaintiff entrusted the sale of the instant vehicle to the Defendant on or around May 2016.

Even though the Defendant sold the instant vehicle to a third party on August 2016, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact of sale and did not return the sale price of KRW 37 million (i.e., the sale price of the instant vehicle - KRW 99 million - the remaining lease principal of the instant vehicle at the time of sale).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, as it was unjustly unjust enrichment of KRW 37 million equivalent to the sales price of the instant vehicle.

B. The Defendant is the Plaintiff around August 2015.