2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The counterclaim Defendant is a person engaged in the business of manufacturing and installing steel structures under the trade name of “D” and is the owner of the vehicle recorded in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”).

B. The Plaintiff is a representative in the name of “E” and the Plaintiff is the husband of the Plaintiff, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, engaged in the instant car sales business with the said trade name, and is in custody from July 2012, and returned the instant car to the counterclaim Defendant on March 8, 2019.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Counterclaim Defendant respectively remitted KRW 20,000,000,000 to the Counterclaim Defendant on March 9, 2012 and KRW 5,000,000 on March 12, 2012.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 and 3, Evidence Nos. 1 and 1, testimony of witness F of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. On March 2012, the parties’ assertion against the counter-party to the counter-party, the counter-party to the counter-party to the counter-party to purchase the scrap metal from the counter-party to the counter-party to the purchase the scrap metal, and paid the counter-party to the counter-party the total amount of KRW 25,00,000,000. However, the counter-party to the counter-party delivered only the scrap metal (18,525,800,000,000 in total on March 9, 2012, and did not deliver the remainder of KRW 16,474,200, and it is apparent that the counter-party refused to deliver the scrap metal to the counter-party to the lawsuit in this case. Accordingly, the counter-party is obligated to pay the remainder advance payment of KRW 16,474,200,00, as the damages incurred by the non-performance or restitution of the contract.

On the other hand, the counterclaim defendant asserts that since the party who entered into a contract for the sales of the scrap metal with the counterclaim defendant is not a counter-party but a F, the counter-party does not bear liability due to non-performance.

B. The fact that the Counterclaim Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 25,00,000 to the Counterclaim Defendant from March 9, 2012 to December 12, 2012 is as seen earlier, and according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the Counterclaim Plaintiff’s measurement certificate consisting of total of KRW 18,140 km on March 9, 2012.