The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. A. On February 2003, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,000,00 from the old C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant installment loan”) in the name of the Plaintiff, and purchased one vehicle from the old D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. On June 28, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,000,00 to F Co., Ltd. that succeeded to the claim for the said installment loans and was exempted from the remainder of the debt.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant leased the Plaintiff’s name due to personal circumstances and purchased the instant vehicle, and the Defendant was responsible for purchase costs, general expenses, and the instant installment loans.

However, since the defendant did not pay the above installment loans for a long time and the plaintiff paid it by subrogation, the defendant must pay the plaintiff the amount of 6,000,000 won by subrogation and damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff, who was the Defendant D’s member, wants to purchase a vehicle in installments and to prepare cash immediately by selling it, that is, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to do so, and the Defendant only helps the Defendant to do so, and did not have any responsibility for the instant installment loans.

Even if the plaintiff's assertion is met, the plaintiff's claim was extinguished due to the completion of prescription.

3. Determination

A. Considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant was responsible for the instant installment loans, in view of the determination of the cause of the claim, as well as the written statements as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① At the time, the Defendant was a D business employee, and thus, he could purchase the instant vehicle under more favorable conditions than ordinary people. The Defendant borrowed the Plaintiff’s name without any specific friendship to purchase the instant vehicle.