2...

Defendant C, around August 201, intended to purchase the instant vehicle from D and carry out cargo transportation services by entering the Plaintiff. On August 12, 2011, Defendant C drafted a sales contract for the instant vehicle and the consignment sales contract for the Plaintiff and the instant vehicle on the same day.

In the sales contract written with Defendant C, the purchase price is KRW 64 million, and the consignment sales contract written with Defendant C is written with the Plaintiff, stating that the purchase price is KRW 80 million (the contract amount is KRW 5 million and the remainder is replaced by capital) and that “vehicles are owned by the Plaintiff.” However, the vehicle is confirmed to be owned by the contractor, but the vehicle is confirmed to be owned by the contractor. The contractor is only using the above vehicle, and the sale is to pay KRW 80 million and KRW 200,000,000 to the Plaintiff each month. In addition, the contractor recognizes that it is impossible to exercise any right or right to use it later and keep the above contract in one copy.”

Although Defendant B’s purchase and sale of the instant vehicle in the name of Defendant B and preparing a paper entry contract, Defendant C’s credit could not receive a loan for the instant vehicle purchase funds, and Defendant C decided to provide cargo transportation services by obtaining a loan for the instant vehicle purchase funds under the name of Defendant B, one of his own punishment.

Accordingly, the sales contract was re-established on August 12, 201 for the instant vehicle in the name of D and Defendant B (However, the sales price of the sales contract made in the name of Defendant B is stated as KRW 80 million changed from the initial KRW 64 million). Based on such sales contract, on August 15, 2011, a loan of KRW 70 million was made from Defendant B in the name of Defendant B, and was used for the purchase of the instant vehicle.

In addition, regarding the instant vehicle.