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

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. The Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration on January 27, 2014 with respect to the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”), and the fact that the Defendant currently occupies the instant automobiles is not a dispute between the parties, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant automobiles to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. On January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff, via C, an agent, delivered the instant vehicle to the Defendant to secure the above loan obligation by borrowing KRW 3 million at an interest rate of 39% per annum and due date of repayment on February 28, 2014. The Defendant has a legitimate right to possess the instant vehicle as a secured party until he/she is paid the above loan from the Plaintiff.

B. On the other hand, as alleged by the defendant, the automobile of this case was delivered to the defendant in order to borrow KRW 3 million from the defendant and secure the above loan obligation, as alleged by the plaintiff.

Even if the plaintiff delivers the automobile of this case to the defendant for the guarantee of the above loan obligation, and the defendant's custody of the automobile of this case is the act of establishing a pledge on the automobile of this case, and since the automobile can only be the object of the mortgage pursuant to Article 9 of the Act on Mortgage on Specific Movables such as Motor Vehicles, it cannot be the object of pledge. Therefore, the above provision is a motor vehicle registered and announced by the registration, and the acquisition and loss of the right shall take effect only after the registration of the vehicle, so the mortgage is more appropriate than the pledge which takes possession as the method of public announcement, and if the pledge is established, the function of the means of living is to

The above act of pledge is null and void as it violates the above mandatory provision. Thus, the defendant's above act is against the above compulsory provision.