1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff Company purchased KRW 120,000,000 for 120,000 of the B B B B B B B B B B B B B-based motor vehicle (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”). The Plaintiff Company is an owner who registered the transfer of ownership on October 24, 2012.

The present vehicle's price is approximately KRW 287,00,000,000 for the used vehicle which was newly registered in 2006, and is about KRW 100,000 for the used vehicle's high-end market price.

On the date of acquiring the instant vehicle, the Plaintiff set up a mortgage on KRW 120,000,000 on the instant vehicle.

B. The instant vehicle went beyond J, a distributor of large-sized vehicles, through an influence route.

C. On July 2013, the Plaintiff Company delivered the instant vehicle to D in order to have D take charge of the instant vehicle inspection at the inspection establishment located in Seoul through the steering car C of the representative director.

D, while the I, who was known to it, borrowed the I temporarily, was trying to temporarily use and return the vehicle, I continued to communicate with the vehicle and thereafter, I seems to have been distributed the vehicle to a third party.

The argument is argued to the effect that it is "......"

However, there is no fact that the Plaintiff Company filed a civil suit against I or D, or filed a criminal complaint.

on July 11, 2013, K requested K to issue a vehicle registration certificate for the instant vehicle, and K requested F to issue a vehicle registration certificate for the instant vehicle to the vehicle registration agent F who was known to the general public.

E, who is a public official belonging to the Defendant, received an application for re-issuance of the instant vehicle registration certificate from F on July 12, 2013 from F and received an oral application for re-issuance of the instant vehicle registration certificate, but did not thereafter receive all the documents, such as an application and the power of delegation in the name of the representative director of the Plaintiff Company.

E. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff Company lost or stolen the instant vehicle on December 16, 2013, which was five months after the commission of the inspection of the instant vehicle claimed by the Plaintiff.