A. On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant B to purchase KRW 185,000 from Defendant B for large-scale business passenger cars (hereinafter “instant bus”) that Defendant B entered into with Defendant Jin Tourism and operated as a branch owner (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid KRW 48,178,000 to Defendant B by February 20, 2014.

(C) fact that there is no dispute;

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract was rescinded and sought the return of the sales price already paid due to its restitution. The Plaintiff asserts that the effect of the instant sales contract belongs to Defendant Jin-si, a company incorporated into the branch, and sought the return of the sales price to Defendant Jin-si, and sought the return of the sales price from Defendant Jin-si, and sought the return of the sales price in preliminary

C. We first examine the validity of the instant sales contract and then examine the existence and scope of the obligation to return the sales price.

2. A principal to whom a sales contract becomes effective;

A. According to a contract entered into between a trucking business operator holding a trucking transport business license and a trucking business operator who actually owns a motor vehicle, each borrower shall register the motor vehicle in the name of the trucking business operator and transfer it to the trucking business operator, and each borrower shall conduct business on his/her own account and pay the rent to the trucking business operator, even if the owner of the land directly operated and managed the motor vehicle into the trucking transport business in his/her name while paying the rent to the trucking business operator, the act of the owner of the land acting for the trucking company as an agent for the operation and management upon delegation by the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da20069, Oct. 13, 200).