1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2, 2010, C purchased a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) with the introduction of E, who served as a salesperson at the branch of Korea IMMD on July 2, 2010, and completed the procedure for new registration of the ownership of the motor vehicle in its name on the same day.

B. On May 7, 2012, E had no intention or ability to return the instant motor vehicle to C, by deceiving C to be subject to a defective call of the instant motor vehicle, and received the instant motor vehicle from C’s spouse.

After that, E arbitrarily sold the instant vehicle to a motor vehicle which was engaged in the second class trading business on the same day, and the motor vehicle which was gathered has completed the transfer registration procedure in the name of the motor vehicle which was gathered in F with the receipt number on the same day.

C. On May 8, 2012, the motor vehicle was sold to the Defendant who runs the motor vehicle brokerage business in the name of “H (hereinafter “H”) from the former, Seoul-gun G on May 8, 2012, and the Defendant completed the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant as to the instant motor vehicle with the receipt number I on the same day.

On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the instant motor vehicle from the Defendant through the Motor Vehicle Broker J, and the Plaintiff, with respect to the instant motor vehicle to K with the receipt number on the same day, was handed over and operated after completing the transfer registration procedure in the name of the Plaintiff.

E. Meanwhile, on May 18, 2012, C, who was the original owner of the instant vehicle, filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages equivalent to the market price of the instant vehicle and the rental fee, jointly with C, on the ground that “A, who was the original owner of the instant vehicle, was the owner of the instant vehicle. He was the owner of the instant vehicle by deceiving himself, and E was the owner of the instant vehicle by deceiving himself, and sold the instant vehicle, and that he was the mother and the Defendant participated in it, and the Defendant was jointly liable for compensating for damages equivalent to the market price of the instant vehicle and the rental fee.”

2.3.