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

A. On November 2, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired the instant automobile and completed the ownership transfer registration thereof, and is registered as the owner of the instant automobile until now.

B. On March 2002, the Plaintiff delivered the instant automobile to the credit service provider in the course of borrowing KRW 5,000,000 from the credit service provider.

C. On July 13, 2005, a report of accident was received with respect to the instant automobile at interested State Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and the driver of the record of the report and the person reporting the accident are written in the “C” name of the Defendant’s name, and the “D” that was returned to the Defendant at the time of the policyholder column.

On the other hand, D around February 27, 2004 and February 27, 2005, concluded an automobile insurance contract with the interesting fire marine insurance company as to each of the instant automobiles. Each of the insured was the Plaintiff, and the respective insurance period was one year.

E. The sum of the automobile tax and local education tax imposed between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2017 with respect to the instant automobile reaches KRW 1,332,220.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number for a case with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On March 2002, the Plaintiff asserted that at the time of borrowing KRW 5,00,000 from a credit service provider, the Plaintiff delivered all documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership of a vehicle to the credit service provider, indicating that the instant vehicle can be transferred to the credit service provider and that the vehicle can be disposed of if it is not repaid by the due date for payment agreed.

Although the plaintiff tried to repay after the due date, it was impossible to find out the whereabouts of the credit service provider.

In addition, when D on July 13, 2005, the Defendant, who had his chain, was driving the automobile of this case, which was subscribed to automobile insurance from February 27, 2004, and around November 13, 2006, there is also a fact that he had purchased the automobile of this case under the name of the Defendant himself.