1. The primary defendant is the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership on the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The primary defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant B") is a person engaged in the used cars trading business under the trade name of "D company", and the primary defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant C") is a "D company" as an employee of the "D company," who acts as a broker or intermediary for the used cars trading.

B. On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased a white sign board car (hereinafter “ white sign board car”) owned by E through the mediation of Defendant C at KRW 11.6 million.

C. On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff entrusted Defendant C with the sale of a white master. D.

On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet owned by Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as the “motor vehicles in this case”), stating the transferor, transferee, and the purchase price of KRW 19.4 million, and paid KRW 19.4 million, and completed the transfer registration procedure in the name of the Plaintiff on September 18, 2014.

E. After 2 and 3 days thereafter, the Plaintiff received a white level master from Defendant C, and directly disposed of it to another person.

F. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to return KRW 19,40,000,000 to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendants refused the return of KRW 9,40,000,000 as the price of the instant vehicle, and KRW 10,000,00,000,000 as a white Belgium consignment fee and tubes and repair fee, and refused the acquisition of the instant vehicle.

G. Defendant C returned to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1 million on September 19, 2014 and KRW 2 million on October 2, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branches number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the vehicle of this case was temporarily purchased as the broker of defendant C, but there was no adequate mariable material, but the test color Belgium is as the object. The plaintiff's claim is that the test color Belgium is the object.