1. On October 16, 2017, the Defendant issued an order to suspend the operation of the motor vehicle registered in the attached Form to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 28, 2016, the Defendant was the owner of a motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter the instant motor vehicle) and entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for free use of the motor vehicle around December 28, 2016

(2) The Defendant agreed to pay 7.2 million won deposit to the Defendant in order to secure property value extinction due to theft, loss, etc. of the vehicle. The Defendant agreed to pay 7.2 million won deposit to the Defendant to the Defendant in the instant contract. The contract term is two years, and one party fails to notify the termination of the contract one month before the termination of the contract.

In addition, the defendant agreed that the defendant will be held responsible for any damage to the creditor due to fraudulent theft and order to suspend operation.

B. On December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7.2 million to the Defendant (one million shall be paid in a check, and KRW 6.2 million shall be deposited into the account in the name of C designated by the Defendant) on December 28, 2016 under the above contract, received related documents, such as the key of the above vehicle, the Defendant’s registration certificate, the certificate of personal seal impression, and the copy of resident registration,

C. However, on October 16, 2017, the Defendant unilaterally requested an order to stop the operation of the said vehicle to the Road Traffic Management Office at the time of water supply without the Plaintiff and registered the order to suspend the operation of the said vehicle.

Therefore, although the plaintiff requested the defendant to cancel the order to suspend the operation, the defendant is refusing to comply with it.

[Evidence: Evidence Nos. 1 through 9, All purport of oral argument]

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to allow the plaintiff to use and take profits from the above vehicle during the contract period under the contract of this case.

The obligation does not apply to the suspension order of operation against the above vehicle, and if the order is issued, the application or consent is also required to be rescinded.