1. The defendant shall deliver the vehicle listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff registered his/her automobile as the owner of the plaintiff on September 5, 2014, which is the company operating the automobile leasing business, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "vehicle of this case") and purchased the automobile deduction for the period from September 5, 2019 to September 5, 2020, and the fact that the defendant currently occupied the vehicle of this case is recognized.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant vehicle, barring special circumstances.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's employee C and the vehicle of this case are not obliged to deliver the vehicle after the lapse of the period from May 19, 2018 to May 18, 2019, because the defendant paid the deposit of KRW 28.5 million and the additional deposit of KRW 7 million.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 8 of Y, a rental agreement was prepared between C and D with the Defendant using the instant vehicle as the Plaintiff’s agent, and D and the Defendant wired KRW 28,500,000 to C. However, each of the above evidence is insufficient to acknowledge that C is an employee of the Plaintiff or a right to lease the instant vehicle on behalf of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.