1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On December 6, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased an automobile listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobile”) from the Defendant. Since there was a serious defect in the engine part of the instant automobile, the Plaintiff rescinded the sales contract concluded with the Defendant for the instant automobile (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

However, according to the Automobile Management Act, the Defendant, who is a motor vehicle dealer, shall notify the Plaintiff of the inspection record within 120 days from the inspection date in writing. Since the Defendant violated the above obligations, the Plaintiff shall cancel the instant sales contract on the grounds of such violation.

Therefore, at the same time, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sales price of KRW 33.2 million paid by the Plaintiff, KRW 3,240,435, and delay damages for each of the said payments paid by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 1,70,000 per annum from December 6, 2017 to the date of full payment of each of the said payments.

2. Determination

A. The written evidence Nos. 6, 11, and 13 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a defect alleged by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant sales contract. Rather, according to the written evidence Nos. 4 and 7, it is only recognized that there was a defect in the instant automobile at the time of the instant sales contract, and that there was no other other evidence to acknowledge it. According to the written evidence Nos. 4 and 7, it is only recognized that there was no other defect in the inspection conducted on June 9, 2017, which was six months before the instant sales contract was concluded and on December 6, 2017, which was the date of the instant sales contract.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the assertion of violation of the duty to notify, the Defendant’s instant automobile on December 6, 2017, which was the date when the instant sales contract was concluded.