1. The judgment of the court of first instance is in progress

A. As to Defendant B, KRW 547,280 and its amount from April 13, 2019 to June 16, 2020.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by Defendant B as D employee, and the Plaintiff sold an Aurdi A6 vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). Although there were defects, such as engine oil, driver’s seat, snicking, and micking, etc., the instant vehicle was in 2012, Defendant B was in KRW 2013, and the instant vehicle was in 2013, and was deceiving the Plaintiff as if there were no defects.

In addition, although Defendant B received KRW 1,960,00 from the Plaintiff as the acquisition tax for the instant vehicle, but actually paid acquisition tax is KRW 1,412,720, the difference of KRW 547,280, it did not return it to the Plaintiff.

Due to the tort committed by Defendant B, the Plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 9,60,601 in total, including 2,722,621, 1500,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000, 46,000,000,000,000 for regular inspection, and 4,00,000,000,000,000,000, and 547,280,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

In addition, Defendant C as the representative of “D” is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages jointly with Defendant B as an employer under the above tort committed by Defendant B.

B. (1) Determination (1) The part of the embezzlement of the registration tax imposed on Defendant B’s claim against Defendant B with the middle and high sea with D staff, and the fact that the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle through Defendant B around February 10, 2018 does not conflict between the parties, and according to the overall purport of the entry and pleading as to the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant vehicle, Defendant B paid KRW 1960,000 from the Plaintiff as acquisition tax, but paid the acquisition tax actually paid by the Plaintiff, as acquisition tax, and paid KRW 547,280.