1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: The defendant’s new argument at the trial of the court of first instance is added to the judgment on the new argument at the trial of the court of first instance, and the defendant’s “the defendant” at No. 2, No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where “the plaintiff” is “the plaintiff.

2. As to the new argument in the trial

A. After the decision of the first instance court was rendered, the Plaintiff’s claim 1) purchased the instant vehicle from E, the nominal owner of the instant vehicle, and transferred the ownership to the Plaintiff on October 2, 2015, which was subsequent to the decision of the first instance court, on October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to return the purchase price. (ii) In fact, the instant vehicle was transferred to E on March 27, 2014, and it was transferred to E on April 28, 2014, after the transfer was made in the future on April 28, 2014.

② On October 15, 2014, E completed the registration of the creation of mortgage with the amount of KRW 22,50,000,000 in the amount of the debtor, the plaintiff, the mortgagee, the capital stock company (hereinafter referred to as the "A Capital") and the bond value of KRW 22,50,00.

③ The Plaintiff decided to take over the instant vehicle from E and dispose of it to a third party upon the request of Aju Capital, and E first cancelled the seizure registered on the instant vehicle, and received KRW 2,080,000 from the Plaintiff for the cost of cancellation, and at the same time, decided to deliver the registration document to the Plaintiff.

④ On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted a transfer contract with E on October 2, 2015, but E did not release the said seizure, and the transfer registration document was not issued.

(5) On November 5, 2015, Ariju Capital requested a voluntary auction on the instant vehicle possessed by it, and received a ruling to commence auction on November 5, 2015.

(F) In the case of this case, the judgment of the court below as to Gap's evidence Nos. 14 through 17, 19, Eul's evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.