1. Defendant C shall deliver to the Plaintiff the vehicle listed in the separate sheet.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On July 13, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).

B. The Plaintiff consented to the operation of the instant motor vehicle to Defendant B, and Defendant B transferred the instant motor vehicle to Defendant C as a bond security around October 8, 201, and Defendant C currently operates the instant motor vehicle.

2. Claim for extradition against Defendant C: Defendant C, who currently occupies the instant vehicle owned by the Plaintiff without obtaining the consent of the quoted Plaintiff, is obligated to deliver the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff; therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is with merit.

Defendant C lent KRW 30 million to Defendant B, and received the instant vehicle as a bond security. Thus, Defendant C’s assertion is not acceptable, on the ground that it is not reasonable to refuse to deliver the instant vehicle on condition that the Plaintiff would not return the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff before receiving the above KRW 30 million from Plaintiff or Defendant B. However, Defendant C’s assertion is not acceptable.

3. Claim for extradition against Defendant B: Any request for surrender or surrender against the person who actually occupies the object on the ground of illegal possession shall be made against the person who actually occupies the object, and as long as even if the illegal possessor is the one but does not actually possess the object, the request for surrender or surrender against the person shall be made unreasonable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da9045 delivered on July 9, 1999, etc.). Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant B transferred the instant vehicle to Defendant C for the purpose of securing obligations, and Defendant C currently occupies it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s request for extradition of the instant automobile against Defendant B is without merit.