1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,415,626, among the Plaintiff, and KRW 9,248,346 from May 30, 2017 to KRW 167,280.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 2013, the representative director D of the Plaintiff Company (former trade name: C Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) drafted a sales contract to purchase a motor vehicle with the unit principal of KRW 13,500,000 and KRW 36 months in the name of Hyundai Motor Vehicle E and the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).

B. On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff Company received the instant automobile, and completed the transfer registration under the Plaintiff Company’s name on December 13, 2013.

C. By September 2014, the Defendant, while serving as the head of the headquarters at the Plaintiff Company, used the instant vehicle by transporting materials, etc. to the construction site of the Plaintiff Company F, etc. (hereinafter “G Corporation”), and thereafter, continuously occupied and used the instant vehicle for personal purposes.

On the other hand, the defendant retired from the plaintiff company in 2015.

Plaintiff

On May 2017, the company requested the order to stop the operation of the instant motor vehicle and issued the order to stop the operation of the motor vehicle, and the instant motor vehicle was kept in custody on the 24th day of the same month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 4, 5, 15 through 17, witness H's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff Company

A. The gist of the assertion was that the Plaintiff purchased the instant automobile at the construction site for use, and the Defendant used the said automobile. On September 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant automobile on the condition that installment payments and insurance premiums are paid to the Defendant after completion of G construction works by the Plaintiff Company.

However, even after withdrawal from the Plaintiff Company, the Defendant continues to occupy and use the instant vehicle without permission, notwithstanding the request of the Plaintiff Company.

Therefore, the Defendant delivered the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff Company. ② Damage equivalent to the royalty amounting to 14,700,000,000 from illegal occupation and use of the instant vehicle, and the instant case.