1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance regarding the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the following additional determination as to the Defendant’s counterclaim, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As a result of the fact-finding on Gap's evidence Nos. 16 through 31 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), 34, 35, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 16, and 17, and the fact-finding on the chip Co., Ltd. of this court, it is reasonable to deem that the right to manage and dispose of vehicles listed in the separate sheet was F, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the testimony of the witness F of this court and the overall purport of the pleadings, even if the plaintiff arbitrarily disposed of the vehicles listed in the separate sheet and received the price, the disposition is separate from F, which constitutes tort against the defendant.

It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff made unjust enrichment.

① The Defendant and F agreed that if the Defendant pays the vehicle purchase price, F would purchase the vehicle with the said money, and take profits remaining after deducting the purchase price of the said vehicle when the vehicle is sold.

② Although the Defendant asserted that the purchase price of the vehicle stated in the separate sheet was specified and paid, the time when the relevant vehicle was transferred to the ownership under the name of the Plaintiffs does not coincide with that of the Plaintiffs.

In other words, it is most cases where the transfer registration has already been made after a considerable period of time has elapsed since the deposit, and there is no case where the transfer registration has been made immediately before the deposit date.

③ In addition to the Defendant, F was paid to Plaintiff B, Nonparty I, etc. a considerable amount of money as the purchase price of the vehicle. From July 2014, F seems to have been engaged in the business in the form of so-called return prevention because financial difficulties were serious.

F. F. This.