2...

A. The Plaintiff is a person who is on duty in the ObbbP Co., Ltd., which runs the business of selling used cars as a business.

B. On October 25, 2013, the Defendants purchased an automobile from E in 2008, whose vehicle number was D, Quata (hereinafter “instant automobile”).

C. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant motor vehicle in KRW 75 million from the Defendants (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the transfer of ownership registration in the name of ObPPP Co., Ltd.

On February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff sold the instant motor vehicle in KRW 81 million to H. On September 10, 2015, the Plaintiff notified H of the fact that the instant motor vehicle was flooded and repaired on September 10, 2015, and returned the purchase price to H.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for damages caused by default or tort

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not notify the Plaintiff that the instant automobile was flooded at the time of the instant sales contract, and deceiving the Plaintiff by notifying the Plaintiff of the cost of dealing with the instant automobile on July 27, 201, as the cost of dealing with the instant automobile was for the purpose of teaching. As such, the Defendants are liable to compensate for the incomplete performance of the instant sales contract or tort.

B. The buyer of the instant sales contract asserted by the Defendants is not the Plaintiff, and the Defendants did not know that the instant automobile was flooded at the time of the instant sales contract.

C. In determining who the purchaser of the instant sales contract is the party, the entries of the disposal document, such as the sales contract, are the most important criteria. However, in the event that no sales contract exists as in the instant case, the process of concluding the relevant sales contract.