2. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants.

A. Defendant C entered into an entrustment management agreement with respect to F tourist buses (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and completed the transfer of ownership registration under B on October 25, 2013.

B. On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff decided to purchase the instant vehicle through the introduction of Defendant E, and paid KRW 1 million to Defendant E with the provisional contract deposit. On May 20, 2016, at the office of Defendant E, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on the ground that: (a) at the office of Defendant E, D, the real representative of Defendant C (Co-owner) was present and entered into the instant contract in the presence of Defendant C and Defendant E; (b) the Plaintiff is also the Plaintiff (see, e.g., written complaint, etc. as of August 13, 2019).

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the sales price of the instant vehicle was KRW 65 million between the first instance court and the third day for pleading, and the Plaintiff asserted that the instant vehicle was the sales price of the instant vehicle from May 20, 2016 to the third day for pleading, but the Plaintiff paid KRW 22 million directly to B on May 20, 2016. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the sales price was KRW 65 million (=65 million -20 million - one million - one million - one million - one million ) of the instant vehicle, which was remitted to Defendant E, was partially reversed.

However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is inconsistent, while Defendant E consistently asserts that only KRW 37 million out of the above KRW 65 million is part of the purchase price of the instant vehicle, and the remainder KRW 28 million is the purchase price for other vehicles owned by J Co., Ltd., and that the total purchase price of the instant vehicle is KRW 60 million. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is liable to prove that the Defendants have the burden of proof regarding the purchase price.

That is, the plaintiff's assertion.