1. Of the monetary payment part concerning a counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount is ordered to be paid.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) E and F delegated the right to secure the instant automobile by the Defendant, the owner of the instant automobile, to offer the said automobile as a security for transfer. The Plaintiff leased KRW 12,350,000 to E after receiving the said automobile from the Plaintiff on or around March 10, 2015. However, the Plaintiff did not fully satisfy the documents necessary for the transfer registration, and the Plaintiff is unable to register the transfer of ownership on the instant automobile. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to implement the transfer of ownership registration procedure for the instant automobile pursuant to the said transfer transfer agreement. Even if the Defendant did not grant the right to represent the instant automobile to E and F, the Plaintiff acquired the instant automobile in good faith, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to perform the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile. In addition, the Defendant did not perform the transfer registration procedure as above, and instead, did not report the instant automobile in the name of unlawful vehicle, with the Plaintiff’s use of the said automobile as a security, operation of the said automobile, and damages caused to the Plaintiff, thereby paying damages to the Defendant.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment as to the claim for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the motor vehicle No. 1, the fact that the plaintiff has a copy of the motor vehicle registration certificate of this case and a certificate of personal

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant entrusted E/F with the right to provide the instant automobile to the plaintiff as a security for transfer, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the transfer security contract for the instant automobile was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is the automobile of this case.