1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, based on the authentic copy of the notarial deed No. 159 of 2012, as to C, had the debtor C and C, as the defendant, and as to the “the amount up to KRW 500 million out of the purchase cost of the vehicle that the Defendant paid to C when purchasing 24 vehicles outside D and D in the name of the defendant, from among the purchase cost of the vehicle that the Defendant paid to C when selling the vehicle, the amount up to the claimed amount of KRW 500 million is subject to the Busan District Court’s branch court’s order of seizure and collection, and the decision was served on January 21, 2015.

(b) E is currently registered under the name of the defendant;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s actual representative of the Plaintiff’s assertion E shall be C, and the Defendant and C shall only have the registration of a motor vehicle under the name of the Defendant, and upon disposing of a motor vehicle, the purchase price shall be paid to the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to return the remainder, excluding 5% fee, to C

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the collection amount of KRW 30 million and damages for delay among the claims for return of the purchase cost of vehicles to be paid to C to the plaintiff.

B. It is not sufficient to recognize that the result of the fact-finding reply to the FOGGG on the statement No. 6, the Eastern Customs Affairs of this court, and the fact-finding response to the FOGGGGG alone has an agreement on the return of vehicle purchase cost as alleged by the plaintiff between the defendant and C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.