1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Around December 2015, the Defendant Heavy 114 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) posted a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) at KRW 3.4 million in the middle and high-speed market.

On January 9, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of automobile transfer, which is KRW 8.4 million, with respect to Defendant B and the instant automobile.

그런데 자동차 매매가격은 940만원이었고, 그중 800만원은 KB캐피탈에서 대출 받아 매매대금에 충당하였다. 며칠 후 원고는 이 사건 자동차를 비싸게 샀다며 피고 B에게 환불을 요구하였다.

However, if the defendant company, which is a second-class seller, purchases a second-class vehicle and posts the sales price on the second-class market, it would sell the vehicle to the defendant company and pay the sales price to the defendant company, and the remainder would be their own profits.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 23, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Claim against the defendant company

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C and the Defendant B are the expressed agent with a great influence on the Defendant’s agent or authority.

However, since C et al. sold the instant vehicle, which is up to 3.4 million won by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s non-experienced Doctrine, 9.280,000 won, it is null and void pursuant to Article 104

(H) The Plaintiff’s assertion is false. The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with C, etc. to sell the instant vehicle “to sell it at a container.” As such, the Plaintiff’s sales contract was revoked on the ground of fraud of C, etc.

(Preliminary Claim). Even if a interpreter C, etc. is an unauthorized representative, if the defendant company did not ratification a sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant B, such sales shall be null and void.

Therefore, the Defendant Company should return 9280,000 won to the Plaintiff and take over the ownership transfer registration of the instant automobile.

B. The Defendant B stated the Defendant Company as a party to the contract, but the Plaintiff.