1. The Defendant completed the receipt of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on January 17, 201 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 7, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership on the instant motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”), and then borrowed the instant motor vehicle from the lending enterprise, as collateral, KRW 4 million on January 14, 201, and KRW 7 million on January 27, 201, and around that time, transferred the instant motor vehicle to the person in charge of the lending enterprise, and issued all necessary certificates of personal seal impression, etc. to transfer the vehicle.

B. On January 17, 2011, E Company registered the creation of mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the creation of mortgage of this case”) by designating the Defendant as the mortgagee with respect to the instant automobile as the mortgagee at the time of the registration of mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the creation of mortgage of this case”).

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 8,364,250 on March 5, 201, KRW 17,000, KRW 250 on May 17, 2011, and KRW 4,000,50 on August 3, 2011 to E lending enterprises (F) respectively.

On November 13, 2019, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff received contact from the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office that the instant motor vehicle was abandoned, and recovered around that time.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he obtained a loan from E, and delivered the instant automobile as security, and thereafter repaid all the loans.

The establishment of mortgage of this case is registered in the name of the defendant with respect to the automobile of this case. The plaintiff did not grant G the right of representation as to the registration of the establishment of mortgage of this case and did not have concluded a mortgage contract with the defendant. Thus, the registration of the establishment of mortgage of this case must be cancelled as the ground of invalidation

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant paid a certain amount to E lending company G and received the operation of E lending company G.

On January 14, 201, the Plaintiff received 5.120,000 won from H to the I bank account, and 2.980,000 won from J bank account, respectively, and as a security, on the instant automobile under the name of the Defendant.