1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an employee of C Co., Ltd., the purpose of which is to sell used cars, and the Defendant is a co-owner of Dunching car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. On July 2013, the Defendant made an advertisement to sell the instant vehicle at KRW 19.8 million to “E”, which is an Internet medium-sized trading site. Around July 31, 2013, the Defendant was sent KRW 300,000 as a provisional contract deposit, upon contact with the person who expressed his/her “F” (hereinafter “F”) to buy the instant vehicle from “F”, despite having no knowledge of his/her identity.

C. Meanwhile, F made an advertisement to sell the instant vehicle at KRW 17.7 million by reproducing the Defendant’s above advertising content in the name of “H,” and introducing the instant vehicle in the name of “H,” and the Plaintiff reported this to F on July 31, 2013, and decided to purchase the instant vehicle at KRW 17.5 million by making a phone call to F.

On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 1,677,00,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00

The Plaintiff asserts that the purchase price of KRW 17 million was determined with the consent of the Defendant at the vehicle acquisition site. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, when the Plaintiff reported the advertisement writing of “G” to the F, the F introduced him as the Defendant’s punishment, and even when the Defendant asked the Defendant at the vehicle acquisition site, the Defendant respondeded to F as it was well known to the seller of the instant vehicle. As such, the Plaintiff appears to have been in the transaction with F, and the Plaintiff appears to have transferred the purchase price to the account in the name of F. As examined below, the Plaintiff rather than the Defendant.