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

2. Compulsory execution for the delivery of the above automobile.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 17, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration with respect to the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).

B. Around July 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 17 million from C and provided the instant vehicle as collateral, and agreed to receive the refund of the instant vehicle upon repayment of the principal and interest on the loan.

C. On February 13, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid the principal and interest of the loan 18.5 million won to C, but C did not return the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff and delivered it to a third party, and the Defendant currently occupies the instant vehicle.

Upon the plaintiff's complaint, C was prosecuted for embezzlement of the instant vehicle.

E. The market price of the instant vehicle is KRW 37,394,590.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant automobile to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant automobile, and if it is impossible to enforce the compulsory execution of the said vehicle delivery, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 37,394,590, which is the market price of the instant automobile.

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that the plaintiff set up a security for transfer of the automobile of this case while borrowing money from C, and the defendant received documents related thereto from D, the last owner of the automobile of this case, which was assigned by C in succession from C, and thus, the right to possess and own ownership of the automobile of this case is the defendant. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff entered into a security for transfer of the automobile of this case with C, and

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.