The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff's claim added in the trial is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the determination of additional claims in paragraph (2) with respect to this case, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) sought the location of the said vehicle in the Defendant’s residence, etc. for provisional execution of delivery of the instant vehicle, but did not discover the location, and added in the trial to the subject claim in preparation for impossibility of execution of delivery by asserting that the Plaintiff did not discover the location. 2) The claim for extradition of the instant vehicle based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant vehicle is the claim for return of property owned under the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner

However, in light of the nature of the right, unlike the claim based on the claim, the claim based on the real right cannot be claimed for compensatory damages under Article 390 of the Civil Code for the reason of impossibility of performance

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da28604 Decided May 17, 2012). As a result, a claim for compensatory damages in advance cannot be deemed permitted in preparation for cases where performance is impossible before the judgment becomes final and conclusive or where execution is impossible after the final and conclusive judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion, which is premised on the plaintiff's claim for compensatory damages due to the impossibility of performance of the claim for real rights, is without merit, even though it is possible to claim for damages due to tort separately.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As the Defendant used the instant motor vehicle from February 3, 2014 to December, 3, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for damages arising from unjust enrichment return or tort. (2) Determination is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intention of possession (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). The Plaintiff’s assertion is legitimate.