2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

A. On May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased D BM BW 320 d (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) from C, a representative director, for KRW 16 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and received delivery of the instant vehicle around that time.

B. On the bottom of the “automobile Transfer Certificate (For Motor Vehicle Transaction)” prepared in relation to the instant sales contract, the phrase “* Vehicle Performance Inspection ................... (motor vehicle)” is indicated as follows: “The contract shall be made by facsimile, and the contract shall be made by facsimile.”

C. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the “Smi New Oil Inspection Record” with respect to the instant vehicle, which was delivered to the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, is marked with a physical mark on the part “Smigr” with respect to the part “Smigr” with respect to the part “Smigr” in the part “Smigr” in the part “Smigr” with the outer upper part “Smigr”, the upper part of the outer upper part “Smigr”, the upper part of the upper part of the upper part “Smigr”, and on the receipt and exchange of melter and inspector’s opinion, but with a physical mark on the part “un” (excluding simple repair).

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 4 and 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, even though the instant vehicle was an accident-free vehicle, sold the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff revoked the instant sales contract and sought compensation for damages equivalent to the refund of the purchase price of the instant sales contract (the amount of KRW 700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

B. We examine ex officio the judgment on the claim for nullification of the instant sales contract.

The plaintiff.