1. The plaintiff's primary defendant and the conjunctive defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion, as the owner of a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”), provided D with the instant motor vehicle as security on June 14, 2012.

However, D arbitrarily transferred the instant automobile to the primary defendant, and the primary defendant assigned the said automobile again to the primary defendant.

The conjunctive defendant asserts that he returned the automobile in this case to the primary defendant, and the plaintiff seeks delivery of the automobile in this case to the primary defendant who possesses the automobile in this case as a removal of interference based on the ownership of the automobile in this case, and if the primary defendant does not occupy the automobile in this case, he shall seek delivery of the automobile

2. First of all, as to whether the primary or conjunctive Defendant possessed the instant vehicle, the facts that the primary or conjunctive Defendant purchased the instant vehicle from the primary Defendant around June 2014 and purchased the instant vehicle from the primary Defendant and purchased the automobile insurance in the name of the Plaintiff on June 26, 2014.

However, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole pleadings, the conjunctive defendant returned the above automobile to the main defendant due to the plaintiff's suspicion of forging private documents, etc., and the main defendant sold the automobile to a third party around October 2014, and the main defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for four months at the Southern District Court (2015No. 12) and one-year suspension of execution on March 31, 2015 on the charge that he transferred the automobile of this case to a third party without registration of transfer in his name. Thus, the facts acknowledged above alone are insufficient to recognize that the main defendant or the conjunctive defendant occupies the automobile of this case as of the present time, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, it is true.