1. The defendant shall deliver the vehicle listed in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

1. In full view of the record of No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, and the fact-finding results of the fact-finding on the Seoul Gangnam Police Station of this Court, the automobiles listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) are owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant received the instant automobiles from C around November 2016 and possessed them against the Plaintiff’s will at present.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, the possessor, has the duty to deliver the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff as the owner.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion that: (a) lent KRW 6,00,000 to C on November 201, 2016; and (b) received the instant vehicle from C as collateral; (c) thus, the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for extradition before being reimbursed KRW 6,00,000.

B. In light of the judgment, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff granted the right to provide the automobile of this case as security to C in order to properly occupy the automobile of this case after being provided as security by C. The evidence alone submitted is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have a legitimate right to possess the automobile of this case in relation to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's above assertion based on this premise is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.