1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On March 2003, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendants, who are its branch employees, but did not pay interest, the Defendants demanded the Plaintiff to offer as security a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) around July 2003, and issued all documents necessary for the registration of the ownership transfer while the Plaintiff delivered it to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants were to repay their obligations until the end of October 2003, which is three months.

However, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife failed to repay within the time limit, and the Defendants were the actual owners of the instant automobile, but without completing the transfer of ownership registration, purchased mandatory insurance in Defendant C’s name for some period, and directly controlled and operated the instant automobile by 2015.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Plaintiff on October 31, 2003, and the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, such as fines for negligence due to the failure to take over the transfer registration procedure, and Defendant B also has the obligation to compensate for damages, such as the obligation to take over the transfer registration procedure and fines for negligence.

Although the Defendants received the instant automobile from the Plaintiff as collateral, the establishment of a pledge on an automobile is prohibited pursuant to Article 9 of the Act on Mortgage on Specific Movables including Automobiles, so the Defendants are obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure as a seller security interest.

B. The Defendants asserted that they did not acquire the instant automobile ownership from the Plaintiff on the premise that the instant automobile ownership is transferred, but they were obtained as security for the loan claim.

2. According to the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff on January 1, 2003.