1. The defendant shall deliver the vehicle listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 22, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the new registration of ownership of a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).

B. The defendant currently occupies the automobile of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for the delivery of a motor vehicle

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above automobile to the plaintiff, the owner of the instant vehicle, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the claim on the right to lease, the defendant asserts that the defendant has a legitimate right to possess the above motor vehicle since he entered into a lease contract with C on the instant motor vehicle and possessed the said motor vehicle, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments as stated in subparagraphs 2 through 4 above, D, the husband of the plaintiff, is entitled to use and benefit from the instant motor vehicle by the plaintiff around March 2013, 2013, and C and D, who are employed in D, a corporation operating laccar agency business, etc., shall be allowed to use the instant motor vehicle for the lease business, but C and D, who are employed in D, shall be allowed to use the instant motor vehicle for the lease business, and if C leases the said motor vehicle to others, it shall be paid to D a monthly amount of KRW 1,700,000 (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement of this case").

A) The fact that C performed the instant lease agreement. Accordingly, C around March 2013, 201, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease KRW 3,000,000 per month of the rent of the instant vehicle via E (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

the defendant on the same day, and the fact that the vehicle in this case is delivered to the defendant can be recognized.

However, according to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and 7, C did not pay the above monthly amount of KRW 1,700,000 as stipulated in the instant agreement from July 2013 to D, and D.