1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Around July 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to entrust the repair of the CT Freight (hereinafter “instant freight”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant cargo repair contract”). The instant cargo vehicle is a vehicle that the Plaintiff entered into the Daesan Logistics Co., Ltd.

B. On February 2014, the instant cargo was repaired in a usable state with the end of February, 2014, and the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay KRW 10,000,000 as the repair cost of the instant cargo.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff operated the instant cargo vehicle from March 10, 2014 to June 19, 2014, and operated the instant cargo vehicle. On the other hand, upon the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff parked the instant cargo vehicle in the vacant lots adjacent to the DIndustrial Complex operated by the Defendant upon the completion of daily operation.

C. Around June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff presented KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant at the repair cost of the instant truck. Accordingly, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay KRW 15,000,000 at the repair cost, and prevented the Plaintiff from operating the instant truck.

The defendant has kept and managed the freight truck of this case until the date of closing the argument of this case.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Gap evidence No. 5-1 to 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of and judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for delivery of the instant cargo upon the cancellation of the possessory right or the instant cargo repair contract. 2) The Plaintiff’s claim is acknowledged when the possessor was deprived of possession. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was deprived of possession of the instant cargo from the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim on this part is without merit.

Rather, as seen below, the defendant is the cargo of this case.