1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 4, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 250 million to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and created a joint mortgage on five vehicles for business use owned by C (D, E, F, G, and H) on May 29, 2012 to secure this.

B. On July 17, 2013, between C and C, the Defendant entered into a business license and a contract for the transfer of automobiles (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content of acquiring the whole of the C-owned taxi (71) including C’s passenger transport business license and five said taxi (5) at KRW 3.4 billion.

On October 15, 2013, the Defendant received notification of acceptance on October 18, 2013 by filing a report on the transfer of all general taxi transportation business with the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on October 15, 2013 under the instant contract.

C. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for registration of each transfer with respect to C-owned taxi 71 to the competent authority. In the context of each special agreement attached to each of the above applications, the Defendant stated as follows: “other than the collateral security established on this vehicle’s public record, seizure and provisional seizure shall be succeeded to by the transferee limited to those established by the contract date: Provided, That if the transfer amount exceeds the transfer amount, the transferor shall also assume the responsibility; hereinafter “the special agreement of this case”; each transferor’s corporate reduction is written by C, and each transferee’s corporate reduction is affixed by the Defendant’s corporate seal on the side of each transfer column and each transfer column.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4-7, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was jointly mortgaged with respect to five taxis owned by C in order to secure the loan claim of KRW 250 million against C.

However, in the process of implementing the contract of this case, each of the certificates of automobile transfer prepared between the plaintiff and the defendant is subject to the contract of this case.