1. The Defendant’s KRW 65,726 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 8, 2012 to October 31, 2014, and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 201, the Plaintiff decided to purchase from the Defendant a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant motor vehicle”) in which the Defendant entrusted the management of the original cargo Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “principal cargo”) under the Plaintiff’s type C in the Plaintiff’s name, and paid the Defendant the purchase price of KRW 65 million on March 2, 201 and KRW 28 million on March 4, 201.

B. On June 23, 201, the Defendant: (a) set up a right to collateral security of KRW 65 million in the face value of the instant automobile in the name of Hyundai Gyman Social Co., Ltd.; and (b) received KRW 65 million from the said company; and (c) arranged for the Plaintiff to enter into a contract for cargo and management trust; and (d) jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation under the said contract on August 9, 201.

C. From March 2011 to June 201, the instant automobile was operated by the Defendant, from July 2011 to February 2012, and from March 2012, the Defendant re-operationd from March 2012.

On October 2012, when filing a criminal complaint with the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant sold the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff and received part of the purchase price, but without permission, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff by establishing a mortgage on the instant vehicle. However, the prosecution rendered a decision against the Defendant on April 30, 2013 on the ground that it is difficult to view that the right to collateral security was established without the Plaintiff’s consent.

Although the plaintiff appealed against this, the decision to dismiss the appeal was made, and again, the plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with the court 2013 Seocho Jae-338, but the decision to dismiss the appeal was made on February 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. (1) The Defendant asserted that the primary claim for the cancellation of the contract due to the violation of the agreement is based on the amount of KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff and received KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff, and the name of the land owner for the instant automobile is future of the Plaintiff.