1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) receives KRW 9,563,554 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and ② the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the defendant's South Korea, and the defendant is the plaintiff's punishment.

B. The Plaintiff purchased a motor vehicle under the name of the Defendant and the Defendant, and the installment, etc. was borne by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff concluded a title trust agreement with the purport that the Plaintiff would have to occupy and use the motor vehicle, and purchased the motor vehicle listed in the attached Table 1 (the installment period of 36 months, the installment amount of 428,3

C. On February 17, 2015, the Defendant completed the ownership transfer registration on the said motor vehicle.

From February 17, 2015 to September 11, 2016, the Plaintiff occupied and used the said motor vehicle, but from September 12, 2016, the Defendant occupied and used the said motor vehicle.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleading

2. As to the main claim

A. There is no dispute between the parties that the pertinent title trust contract was terminated on or around September 30, 2016 with respect to the cause of the claim, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of termination of the title trust on the said motor vehicle and deliver the said motor vehicle to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] The defendant deprived of the plaintiff's possession of the above automobile. The plaintiff sought not only the termination of the above title trust contract but also the delivery of the above automobile based on the possessory right. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has deprived of the plaintiff's possession of the above automobile (the defendant's assertion that the above automobile was brought to the above automobile

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to occupy and use the motor vehicle in the future at the time of termination of the above title trust contract, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit

B. As to the Defendant’s simultaneous performance defense, the Plaintiff’s summary of the defense is the cost of KRW 3,660,000 paid to the Defendant at the time of purchase of the said automobile.