1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments as indicated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 and the whole pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff received the payment of KRW 10 million on the used cars sold in his/her name and received the payment of KRW 10 million on December 23, 2015 from the defendant and the documents, etc. necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership (automobile registration certificate, used cars sales contract, loan certificate, vehicle liability certificate, vehicle liability certificate, power of attorney, receipt, and the defendant's certificate of personal seal impression).

2. On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that, as the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff directly acquired the instant automobile from the Defendant, or the Defendant offered the said automobile to a credit service provider or a bond company as a collateral for transfer, the Plaintiff purchased the said automobile from the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration due to the transfer on December 23, 2015.

On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that the instant motor vehicle was purchased by the Defendant with a secured loan from a capital company around September 2013 in order to use it for business purposes, and that the Defendant’s business employees who operated the said motor vehicle did not receive a sudden demand, and disposed of it at will without returning the motor vehicle.

3. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff directly acquired the instant vehicle from the Defendant on December 23, 2015.

Furthermore, we examine the argument that the Defendant offered the instant automobile to the credit service provider or bond administrator as a security for transfer and the Plaintiff purchased the said automobile from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff appears to have a sales contract for used cars, borrowed money certificate, vehicle liability certificate, power of attorney, and receipt issued by the Plaintiff from the sale of used cars in name as if they were based on the Defendant’s seal imprint certificate. However, the Defendant’s rejection of the fact of affixing the seal, as well as the identity of the seal is disputed. The date of preparation and the party’s entry are stated in the