1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are revealed in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including the number of each branch office) and the purport of the entire pleadings:

On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff was urged from a person under whose name the Defendant was named as the Defendant, to sell the instant vehicle owned by the Defendant. On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the person under whose name the Plaintiff was named as the Defendant to purchase the instant vehicle with the said person for KRW 22 million (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”), and remitted the said amount to the account designated by the person under whose name the Plaintiff was named as the Defendant.

B. At the time of the contract of this case, the above bearers held the Defendant’s seal imprint certificate, seal imprint certificate, construction machinery registration certificate of this case, and construction machinery register.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant granted the right of representation to sell the instant vehicle to the above person in bad name, and the defendant alleged that the defendant would sell the instant vehicle to the party in bad name and as to this, he would be entitled to the payment of the prescribed fees instead of selling it to the party in bad name. The defendant's certificate of seal impression, certificate of seal impression, certificate of construction machinery registration, etc. were issued, and the defendant's certificate of seal impression, certificate of construction machinery registration was issued, and the right of representation was granted to sell the instant vehicle in KRW 22 million. Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. We examine the judgment, and the fact that the above person without the name was holding the defendant's seal imprint, certificate of personal seal impression, certificate of construction machinery registration of the owner's automobile, and construction machinery register at the time of the contract of this case. However, the above fact alone is difficult to view that the defendant granted the right of representation to sell the owner's automobile at KRW 22 million to the person without the name, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without the need to further examine.

In addition, the plaintiff has the defendant's share of the vehicle to his name in this case 31 million won.