Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On June 10, 2019, the Plaintiff decided to sell the Plaintiff-owned vehicle at KRW 35 million to D with D, and the Plaintiff decided to deliver the said vehicle directly to E.

Accordingly, on June 11, 2019, the Plaintiff sent a vehicle first in trust with the horse that “the payment of the price is to be made directly from E”.

However, the Plaintiff received only KRW 27 million from D, and that E would make a currency with D’s president, and the Plaintiff returned the said KRW 27 million to E, on the ground that “The actual price was erroneously remitted, and as a matter of tax, first of all, deposited into its own account and paid KRW 35 million in the face of the week.”

However, E returned the above 27 million won, and changed the phrase “I cannot pay the price,” and the Plaintiff reported to the police.

B. According to the Plaintiff’s report, Defendant B, the police officer affiliated with the F District Unit, went to the site, and the Plaintiff asked Defendant B to be an actual employee of Defendant D, etc., but the Plaintiff did not seek upon the request, “it does not interfere with the issue of property rights” and did not directly go to the Plaintiff and left the site.

C. However, E changed the attitude of Defendant B, and did not go to D, and the Plaintiff reported to the police again.

The police officers dispatched upon the plaintiff's report, once they moved the plaintiff and E to F zone.

However, Defendant B was merely investigating E’s unlicensed driving, etc., and did not seek a request from the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff would take measures to ensure that the Plaintiff would receive the vehicle price.” The Defendant C of the said district team team only prepared, at the Plaintiff’s request, the content that “E shall be liable for the price of KRW 35 million and shall be paid up to 10:00 on the following day,” and returned E.

However, in the end, E on June 12, 2019.