1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the selective claims added by this court are all dismissed.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the trading of used cars with the trade name of “H,” E is an employee of the Plaintiff, and the Defendants are co-owners of D low-priced vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. On October 27, 2015, the Plaintiff was contacted by a person called “F” (hereinafter “F”) to sell the instant vehicle through E, and agreed to purchase F and the instant vehicle at KRW 22 million.

C. Meanwhile, around that time, the Defendants received contact from F to purchase the instant vehicle with F for KRW 28 million, and thereafter notified F of the place for delivery, and F notified E of the said place.

E, on October 28, 2015, found a place known by F to the Defendants, and concluded a sales contract stating that “E purchases the instant vehicle from Defendant C in the amount of KRW 22 million,” with respect to the Defendants and the instant vehicle. On the same day, E transferred KRW 22 million to a new bank account in the name of G, which is known to F as the intent to pay the purchase price, to the Defendants.

E. However, the sales price of this case was not paid to the Defendants, and the result of the last confirmation was that F acquired the sales price of this case from the Plaintiff using the instant vehicle after all the Plaintiff and the Defendants belonging thereto.

(hereinafter “instant tort”). Accordingly, F was subject to a non-prosecution disposition of suspension of indictment on March 18, 2016 on the ground that the pertinent tort was committed in bad faith.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4-1 and 2-2, testimony of witness E of the first instance court, purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s restitution, based on the cancellation of the sales contract, purchased the instant vehicle from the Defendants, and paid the instant sales price, but refused to deliver the said vehicle on the grounds that the Defendants were not paid the sales price.