1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff acquired the automobile of this case through a mid-to long-term discount agreement with the driver's request by the fraud C which was the second end of the plaintiff's argument.

The Plaintiff had the Plaintiff keep the said vehicle in custody, and the Defendant arbitrarily occupied the instant vehicle without the Plaintiff’s consent and refused to return it. As such, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the said vehicle to the Plaintiff, and if it is impossible to deliver it, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 18.3 million, which is the market price of the said vehicle.

Judgment

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff is deemed to have been the owner of the automobile of this case, but it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant possessed the automobile of this case only with the statement No. 3, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The defendant (the defendant purchased the second class D's life who was the defendant's birth at the request of friendly job offering C, and received the loan by raising installment, and C used the loan, but did not deliver the vehicle within a short time, but did not solve the problem of installment, and thereafter, it did not transfer the vehicle of this case, and accordingly, D transferred the vehicle of this case along with the vehicle abandonment note, operation consent, and accordingly, claimed that D occupied and managed the vehicle of this case, and accordingly, correspond to the above mentioned items 1 and 2 (including the paper number). As long as it is not recognized that the defendant occupied the vehicle of this case, the plaintiff's claim based on this premise is without merit.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.