1. The part against Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is dismissed.

2...

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff claimed a claim for the purchase price (a claim for damages and a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment) and consolation money paid from Defendant B to the Defendants. The first instance court accepted only the claim for the purchase price and dismissed the claim for consolation money.

As to this, the Defendants appealed against the cited portion of the claim for the purchase price, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for the purchase price cited as above.

2. Basic facts

A. On December 15, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant B on the “UV PP freeboard” (hereinafter “instant freeboard”): D” (representative C), 3.9 million won (in the case of remainder, 50% of the contract amount, payment at the time of the shipment of the product), 3: maximum printing area: A3, and 8cm (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. On the date of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 1,950,000 to the one bank account in the name of Defendant C, and on January 3, 2017, the Plaintiff accepted the instant franchise and paid the remainder of KRW 1,950,000 to the account in the name of the said Defendant C and paid the purchase price in full.

C. The “D” stated as the seller of the instant sales contract was a business entity operated in the name of Defendant B under the name of Defendant C, the ASEAN, and was closed on September 30, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 3 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. At the time of conclusion of the sales contract of this case, Defendant B, which was wholly a domestic product, was Defendant B, and was domestically produced by Defendant B as a domestic product. The inside was deceiving the Plaintiff that Defendant B was manufactured by using the domestic product, and even if “D” had already been closed, “D” sells the instant franchise.