1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 14, 2016, Plaintiff C purchased a motor vehicle listed in the attached list owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) as a broker of Nonparty C, a used motor vehicle dealer, to purchase KRW 20,80,000 (a separate registration fee of KRW 80,00,000, management fee of KRW 238,000, and agency fee of KRW 25,000,00, to an individual among the individuals).

B. On the day, the Plaintiff paid 4 million won out of the purchase price by the Plaintiff’s credit card, and the remainder to be paid by the Plaintiff with a loan secured by a motor vehicle, instead of the remainder of the purchase price, C paid 18 million won to the Defendant.

C. On August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff received the instant vehicle on the day, notified C of the cancellation of the sales contract for the instant vehicle by content-certified mail.

On August 29, 2016, the transfer of ownership was registered under the name of the Plaintiff on the instant motor vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap 2, 8, and 13-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the Plaintiff’s assertion, C notified the Plaintiff that the instant motor vehicle is only minor defects, such as the soft oil and the replacement of vehicle parts, and the Plaintiff believed and purchased the instant motor vehicle only at the same end.

However, as a result of the inspection conducted by using the type of the oil check lamps for the recipient of the instant vehicle, it was necessary to repair the amount of KRW 1,390,000,00 for repairing the amount of KRW 1390,000,000, including the defluence, and as a result, as long as the Plaintiff was aware of the history of the accident, the Plaintiff had three accidents different from the horses of the Plaintiff, and the repair cost was limited to KRW 21,320,060, and there was an accident other than a simple accident.

On August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff notified C of the cancellation of the sales contract with the knowledge that there was a serious defect in the instant vehicle, and on May 22, 2017, the Plaintiff expressed an intention to cancel the sales contract to the Defendant, the seller.

As to the instant motor vehicle.