1. The Defendant’s KRW 57,470,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 2, 2016 to October 21, 2016, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 5, 2014, the Plaintiff decided to purchase a used vehicle from the Defendant, and transferred KRW 27,000,000 as the price for the franchise vehicle, and KRW 470,000 as the insurance premium, to C account as the Defendant’s wife.

B. After that, on July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30,000,000 to the same C account as the price for the vehicle of Arabic6DI.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant did not deliver the vehicle, the plaintiff should return the above vehicle price, as he did not deliver the vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant delivered the franchise vehicle to the plaintiff on July 5, 2014, and delivered the price to the plaintiff on July 23, 2014, the vehicle price received from the plaintiff was immediately delivered to D, a vehicle hub, and the plaintiff and D agreed that D paid the price to the plaintiff or exempted the defendant from the defendant's obligation.

3. Determination

A. According to the fact that the obligation to return the vehicle price arises, the defendant is recognized to have received a total of KRW 57,470,000 from the plaintiff as the price for the franchise and the Arabic vehicle. Meanwhile, although the plaintiff was a person who received a vehicle number E around June 11, 2014, the above vehicle was delivered to the defendant before the plaintiff remitted the vehicle price to the defendant, the above vehicle was delivered to the defendant, as well as the whole purport of the arguments in the items in subparagraphs A and 5 evidence. In full view of the purport of the arguments in subparagraphs A and 4 and 5 evidence, the plaintiff was delivered on June 2, 2014.

6. It is also recognized that he remitted 22,00,000 won to 10.10.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that he delivered the franchise vehicle to the vehicle price received on July 5, 2014 is not acceptable. Rather, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant not only did he deliver the vehicle to the plaintiff even after receiving the price of each of the above vehicles from the plaintiff, but also denied the obligation to return the purchase price itself in the lawsuit of this case.