beta
Text
1. A motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person operating “D” in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and E, F, and G are used as a secondary sear belonging to the said “D.”
B. On July 19, 2016, the Defendant posted a notice stating that he/she wishes to sell the instant vehicle on the website.
C. On August 1, 2016, a person without a name (hereinafter “the person without a name”) calls to the Defendant on the phone, and is “H” and “D” operated by the Plaintiff. The instant motor vehicle is to be purchased at KRW 39 million. The person with a name in mind said that he/she would be sent to the Defendant’s residence. On August 2, 2016, he/she requested the Plaintiff to proceed with the purchase procedure for the instant motor vehicle by sending a phone to the Plaintiff.
E and F confirmed whether the Defendant is the owner of the instant vehicle at the Defendant’s residence on August 4, 2016, and confirmed the external appearance, distance, accident, etc. of the instant vehicle and presented the purchase price of the instant vehicle as KRW 33.5 million to the Defendant.
E. The Defendant decided the purchase price of the instant vehicle as KRW 33,50,000 by telephone with the Nonparty, and the Nonparty deposited the purchase price to E with the bank account (J; hereinafter “instant account”) and changed the payment to E.
F. E requested the Defendant to confirm whether the purchase price of the instant vehicle would be remitted to the instant account, and prepared a certificate of automobile transfer stating the same contents (hereinafter “instant certificate of automobile transfer”). After receiving the Defendant’s signature in the instant certificate of automobile transfer, E deposited the purchase price of KRW 33.5 million into the instant account.
G. The Defendant directly driving the instant vehicle and listened to F’s speech that the Nonparty was entirely unaware of the Plaintiff’s office from F, which was the Plaintiff’s office.