A. The defendant is a company running trucking transport business.

B. As of January 27, 2016, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant drafted a certificate of transfer and acquisition (hereinafter “certificate of transfer and acquisition of the instant truck”) with the content that the Defendant sells CW II wing truck (hereinafter “instant truck”) to the Plaintiff on the purchase price of KRW 27,000,000 (the payment of KRW 1,000,000 on January 27, 2016, the remainder of KRW 26,000,000,000, the payment of which was made on February 1, 2016).

C. D completed the registration of the owner of the instant truck on November 19, 2015, and D was registered as the owner even at the time of the instant sales contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 8

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as a party.

The Plaintiff paid 27,00,000 won to the Defendant in accordance with the instant sales contract.

The Defendant did not comply with the Plaintiff’s obligation to register the transfer of the instant cargo vehicle to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff cancels the instant sales contract.

Therefore, the defendant should return 27,00,000 won to the plaintiff, which was paid for restitution.

B) If the Defendant is not a party to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with E, and the Defendant permitted E to enter into the instant sales contract under the name of the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is liable for the name trustor, and the Plaintiff shall be returned the purchase price of KRW 27,00,000. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff would not be liable for the instant sales contract to the Defendant on February 5, 2016.

This corresponds to the Collegiate Agreement, and thus, the instant lawsuit violates the Collegiate Agreement.