1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are not clearly disputed between the Parties, or may be admitted in full view of Gap evidence 1, 2 and Eul evidence 1:

On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased and operated a TPP 2.0 TPP car sold by the Defendant on August 20, 2014. On July 16, 2016, the Plaintiff received the guarantee repair by putting the vehicle into the service center designated by the Defendant due to the automatic transmission failure.

On August 4, 2016, the Plaintiff confirmed that the change was exchanged with remanufacture products, not new products, after the release of the vehicle, and requested the Defendant to exchange it with the new products as net government goods, but the Defendant rejected this.

B. When purchasing the above vehicles, the letter of guarantee issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is indicated as follows with respect to the acceptance of the guarantee.

The scope of guarantee - If it is found that each part is a failure due to material or manufacturing defects for three years from the date of release on an officially imported and imported haloged vehicle through waste yarn, the relevant part shall be repaired or exchanged without compensation.

- Guarantee period - General Parts: Three years (on a day-to-day basis), the implementation of unlimited guarantee repair - The place of guarantee implementation shall be limited to the service center designated by the closed company, and the used parts shall be the end-of-life net government.

2. The plaintiff asserted and determined that the defendant agreed to use "net government product" on guarantee acceptance by issuing a letter of guarantee, and that it naturally refers to a new product, which violated an agreement by exchanging the broken-down machine with remanufactured product, not a new product. Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 3 million, which is the difference between the value of the new product and the remanufactured product, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff.

In this case, there is no clear dispute between the parties that the Defendant’s use in the guarantee repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle guarantees the quality and supplies as wide as halogen net government goods.

In addition, the letter of guarantee issued by the defendant is written.