1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 16, 2009, the Plaintiff, an individual entrepreneur, engaged in cargo transport business, entered into an entrustment management contract with the Samjin Transportation Co., Ltd., Ltd., a trucking business operator (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”). On the instant automobile, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the non-party company with respect to the instant automobile.

B. Meanwhile, on July 17, 2013, the Defendant received a provisional attachment decision on the instant motor vehicle (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment”) from the Gwangju District Court 2013Kahap273 as the claim for reimbursement of KRW 500 million against the non-party company, and on July 19, 2013, the said provisional attachment decision was entered in the motor vehicle register of the instant motor vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional evidence), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the execution of provisional seizure against the motor vehicle of this case by the defendant, the creditor of the non-party company, is unfair, since only the ownership of the motor vehicle in accordance with the above consignment management contract between the plaintiff and the non-party company was owned by the non-party company in substance.

B. In the form of transport business in which each borrower runs a business on his own management and account and pays rent to the transport business operator, the proprietor is an external owner of the passenger transport business, under a contract between the trucking business operator holding the trucking transport business license and the trucking business operator possessing the motor vehicle and the borrower having the motor vehicle in substance. In the inside of the business, each borrower is in the form of transport business in which the borrower pays rent to the transport business operator.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da61055, Jan. 25, 2007). The above consignment management contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the non-party company constitutes a ground entry contract. Thus, the above consignment management contract constitutes a ground entry contract.