1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,458,300 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from May 2, 2017 to November 22, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person engaged in the transportation business by running a truck, and the defendant is a corporation that runs the sales and brokerage business of used cars.

B. On November 16, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased ice Truck from the Defendant for KRW 39,000,000 (hereinafter “instant truck”).

C. After purchasing the instant truck, the Plaintiff repaired it, and received KRW 2,000,000 from the Defendant as repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant truck had many defects. Accordingly, the Plaintiff spent KRW 16,369,00 at the repair cost of the instant truck, and the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 2,00,000 only for the Defendant, thereby incurring damages from KRW 14,369,00.

Based on the warranty liability, the Plaintiff first claims damages of KRW 14,369,000 against the Defendant based on the tort liability.

B. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff spent KRW 16,369,00 at the repair cost of the instant truck, and there is no proof as to whether the price is appropriate.

The truck of this case is a secondhand truck for which 15 years have passed since its release, and all of the details asserted by the Plaintiff that it was paid as repair costs are related to expendable goods, which is only a natural phenomenon that occurs on a deteriorated vehicle, and cannot be viewed as a defect.

The Defendant agreed not to issue any defect of the instant truck by paying KRW 2,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

Since the Plaintiff purchased the instant truck from the Defendant in KRW 39,00,000 and sold it in KRW 30,000,000, the Plaintiff’s maximum amount of damages incurred by the Plaintiff is KRW 7,000,000, which deducts KRW 2,000,000 paid from the Defendant from the difference in the purchase price.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,369,00 for the repair cost, and whether the repair cost is appropriate.