1. The Defendant’s trade on August 5, 2019 on the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 5, 2019, the Plaintiff represented the Defendant’s father C.

A contract was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to sell the vehicle listed in the attached list to KRW 13.5 million.

B. On the same day, the Plaintiff received 12.5 million won from the Defendant, deducting 1 million won from the Defendant as the repair cost of the foregoing vehicle, and thereafter, the Plaintiff sent all the documents necessary for the registration of the said vehicle and the transfer of ownership to the Defendant.

C. At the time of the above sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to make a final decision on the remainder after repair of the said automobile as “matters of special agreement.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 evidence, each entry of Eul 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, the buyer, is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the above automobile from the Plaintiff, the seller, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. 1 The defendant asserts that the plaintiff deceivings the defendant as if he had no problem with the motor vehicle, even though he knows that there is a phenomenon far away from the engine of the motor vehicle at the time of the above sales contract and there is a problem with the rupt.

As there is room for harming the defendant's above argument to the effect that the above contract is revoked on the ground of fraud, this point is examined.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff and the defendant are already aware of the fact that there is a problem in the Presidential Decree of the above automobile, and it is deemed that they had already been reflected or agreed to be reflected in the purchase price at the time of the above sales contract, so it cannot be deemed that

Furthermore, there was a problem on the engine of the said motor vehicle solely based on the circumstances alleged by the defendant, such as the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and the fact that the defendant's delivery of the said motor vehicle was found to fall short of the engine engine.

(2).