1. The defendant shall deliver the vehicle listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to provide a siren (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) as indicated in the attached list, and agreed that the Plaintiff may terminate the siren contract and claim the return of the vehicle if the Defendant is in arrears with the rental fee within a reasonable period of time, after demanding the Defendant to pay the rental fee.

(hereinafter “instant siren contract”). (b)

On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant, who did not pay the rental fee, to pay the overdue rental fee by December 18, 2013, and notified the Defendant that the instant rental contract is automatically terminated if the payment is not made by the due date. The Defendant did not pay the overdue rental fee by the said due date.

C. On September 10, 2015, the Defendant occupied the instant motor vehicle, and the Plaintiff received a provisional disposition on the prohibition of possession or transfer of the instant motor vehicle by the Jeonju District Court 2015Kadan100689, and executed the provisional disposition as Daejeon District Court 2015Ga339 on September 17, 2015.

Accordingly, the instant motor vehicle is kept in the Jung-gu, Daejeon, and C parking lot.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found above, the instant siren contract was terminated on December 18, 2013 due to the Defendant’s delay in rental fees, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant car to the Plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the plaintiff that he had already delivered the automobile of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

(As seen above, the fact that the instant motor vehicle is kept in the Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon as a result of the execution of the provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession can only be recognized as being kept in the C parking lot. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.