1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Han Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company that operates facility leasing business, etc., and Defendant B is a person who operates automobile sales and brokerage business.

B. Around July 30, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 71,662,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to D vehicles used by C for facilities leased from the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant vehicles”). Of the above sales price, KRW 17,30,000, the Plaintiff decided to pay in cash the remainder of KRW 54,362,00 (28 months x 1,941,500) for the Defendant Company registered as the owner of the instant vehicle.

C. After the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff used the instant vehicle by taking over it, and around September 13, 2010, entered into an automobile lease succession agreement with the Defendant Company with the purport that the Plaintiff succeeds to the instant facility lease agreement (hereinafter “instant facility lease succession agreement”). On December 3, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the transfer of ownership on its own name on December 3, 2010, after the lease fee for the instant vehicle was fully paid.

On the other hand, the instant vehicle is a stolen vehicle in Japan and registered as a stolen vehicle at the request of the Japanese branch office on January 15, 2009. The Plaintiff became aware of this fact around July 2012.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5, 7, and 8 (including each of these numbers), the court's metamers Korea Co., Ltd., and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant vehicle is a stolen vehicle exists, and the Plaintiff, the seller of the instant vehicle, is the Defendant Company, at the instant complaint, the party to the instant sales contract.