1. The defendant is based on the sale on April 9, 2008 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

1. The quoted part

A. On April 24, 2007, the Plaintiff offered the instant vehicle as security, and borrowed 12 million won from the Defendant on the condition that the ownership of the instant vehicle is transferred at the time of delinquency in the interest of 10%, 600,000 won per month, and 3 months in arrears. 2) The Defendant did not pay the principal and interest of the Plaintiff properly, and the Defendant did not transfer the ownership of the instant vehicle, even though he was parked in the Jongno-gu Seoul apartment parking lot on April 9, 2008.

3) At the time the Defendant possessed the instant vehicle, there were total of KRW 2,171,00,00, such as luminous rayers, radar distance measuring devices, Hand-off cutting devices, blurith, string-distance measuring devices, string-distance measuring devices, multi-purposes box, and 2 punishments in two strings, but the Defendant is not also returned. (B) Decision by service by publication based on the grounds for recognition (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

2. On April 9, 2008, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant was responsible for paying KRW 12,044,630,00 in total, imposed in the name of the Plaintiff, the owner on the vehicle register, even though the Plaintiff operated the said automobile as a de facto owner after the Defendant brought the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, but did not register the transfer of ownership, and thereafter, the Plaintiff is also liable for the payment to the relevant imposing authority.

However, even though the Plaintiff paid the fine for negligence on behalf of the Plaintiff and actually controlled the instant automobile, exercised the right to indemnity against the Defendant who is operating the instant automobile, or sought damages equivalent to the said money on the grounds of neglecting the obligation to accept the ownership transfer registration of the instant automobile, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a legal right to enforce the Defendant to pay the fine for negligence, etc. imposed in the name of the Plaintiff directly to the administrative agency of the Plaintiff outside the legal relation of the original Defendant