A. On July 29, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) around July 29, 2002, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to register a vehicle in its name because it is not good credit to make food while driving one at one of the passenger cars; (b) and (c) requested the Plaintiff to purchase one of the passenger cars and to pay the purchase price and the public charge for the delivery of the vehicle without the mold; (c) thus, (d) the Plaintiff trusted the horse and registered D Costex Cor (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) under the Plaintiff’s name, and then transferred it to C.

B. C borrowed KRW 4,00,000 from the Defendant around the end of 2004, and delivered the instant automobile to the Defendant as a collateral.

C. The Defendant operated the instant vehicle without permission at a place where it is prohibited from stopping and stopping. The Defendant imposed all fines for negligence on the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant vehicle, and the Plaintiff did not pay it, thereby completing the attachment registration up to about 300 items on the instant vehicle register.

The Defendant delivered the instant automobile to the Plaintiff around February 2013.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Issues;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is liable to compensate KRW 11,23,360, a fine for negligence on the violation of the parking and stopping regulations to the Jung-gu Office while running the instant vehicle without permission after acquiring it from C, and KRW 5,262,840, a fine for negligence on the violation of the parking and stopping regulations to eight and the Gangnam-gu Office, Gangnam-gu Office, and KRW 544,480, a fine for negligence on the violation of the parking and stopping regulations to the Daejeon East-gu Office, Daejeon East-gu Office, and KRW 1,895,40, a fine for negligence on the mandatory motor vehicle insurance, and KRW 962,080, a charge on the improvement of environment was imposed in the future by the Defendant.

B. The defendant's assertion that the automobile of this case is owned by the wife C, and that the automobile of this case was delivered from C to the bonds as collateral, and there is no relationship with the plaintiff.

Since C does not pay the money, the automobile will be refunded.