1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 8, 2013, a lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and Han Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ilth Capital”) with respect to the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”), with a lease term of 48 months, lease deposit of 28,765,40 won, and rent of 1,79,100 won (=payment of 199,800 won for advance payment of lease fees of 199,800 won).

B. The Defendant occupied the instant motor vehicle by delivery from C, but the Plaintiff was subject to a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession of the instant motor vehicle (Seoul Southern District Court 2016Kadan201542) and executed provisional disposition on May 31, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the lease contract of this case was concluded with Han Capital on April 8, 2013, and the Plaintiff, as a party to the instant lease contract, has the right to use and benefit from the instant automobile as a party to the instant lease contract.

However, the Defendant occupied the instant motor vehicle under the transfer for security from C without any source of right to use or benefit from C, and used the instant motor vehicle from October 14, 2015 to May 31, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, and pay the unjust enrichment of KRW 30,019,354, and delay damages incurred by using the instant vehicle without any legal ground.

B. On April 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that, according to C’s proposal that the Plaintiff would bear the rent in the instant complaint, the Plaintiff permitted C to use the Plaintiff’s name for the instant automobile lease agreement, and that C concluded the instant lease agreement with one Capital on April 8, 2013 in the name of the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff himself is the party to the instant lease agreement from the preparatory document dated August 19, 2016, which was subsequent to the Plaintiff’s assertion via a written response.