1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(a) deliver a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 14,283.

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to exist;

On January 2015, the Defendant requested C and D to sell the instant automobile, and issued the registration certificate and the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression regarding the instant automobile.

C and D disposed of the instant vehicle voluntarily, and the Defendant filed a complaint with C and D with an investigative agency for fraud, and a summary order of KRW 5,00,000 was filed to obtain the instant vehicle from C, and the summary order of KRW 5,00,00 was finalized.

On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff established a security interest for the instant automobile owned by the Defendant and lent KRW 12,350,000 to E and F.

In establishing the security right to the instant automobile, the Plaintiff received a registration certificate for the instant automobile and a certificate of personal seal impression from E and F.

On April 20, 2015, the instant motor vehicle was registered as an illegal motor vehicle (tentatively named motor vehicle) upon the Defendant’s application.

From March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff managed the instant automobile from March 10, 2015, and let the Plaintiff use it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant granted the instant automobile registration certificate and the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression to E and F, and the Plaintiff lent money to E and F to E and F, and created a security for transfer concerning E and F, and the instant automobile. Since E and F did not repay the borrowed money to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership on the instant automobile in accordance with the said contract for transfer of security. 2) Home Defendant did not grant the Plaintiff the right of representation for the instant automobile to E and F.