A. On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) and operated the instant automobiles, and around September 2013, the Plaintiff, who was actually an employee of the Defendant C, issued the instant automobiles by designating KRW 6 million as the security interest rate of KRW 500,000,000 to the Defendant C, who was an employee of the Defendant C, around September 2013.

B. On October 31, 2013, the instant automobile was covered by the Defendant B’s liability insurance for one month in the name of Defendant B, and again, on November 30, 2013, the Defendant B was covered by the liability insurance for one month in the name of Defendant B, and thereafter, the liability insurance was purchased in the name of E and F, and the period from March 18, 2015 to January 22, 2017 is the Plaintiff’s name.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, one of Eul 1-1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted 1) As Defendant C was unable to repay the loan secured by the instant automobile, he transferred the instant automobile to Defendant B, and he purchased liability insurance with respect to the instant vehicle on October 31, 2013, and accordingly, Defendant B demanded acquisition of the automobile ownership transfer registration procedure based on the acquisition of the instant vehicle at the time of the purchase of the said automobile. If Defendant B was not the actual transferee, the Plaintiff sought acquisition of the said transfer registration procedure to Defendant C, without specifying the judgment or the order of claim among the Defendants. However, in light of the fact that Defendant C was added to selective Defendant C, Defendant B is deemed Defendant B and Defendant C as the selective Defendant 2 selective Defendant. Defendant B merely purchased the automobile under his own name for two months by lending his credit card, and it did not have any fact that he acquired or operated the instant automobile, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unjust.

B. First of all, according to the above basic facts, the plaintiff and defendant C shall have a maturity of KRW 6 million as security for the automobile of this case one month.