1. According to the counterclaim that was changed in exchange at the trial of the party, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) filed with the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on the basis of the claim that was changed in exchange, 16,500.

1. The first instance court accepted only the principal claim for the registration of the transfer or cancellation of the ownership of the instant vehicle, the principal claim for the damages arising from the delivery of the instant vehicle and the fall into the market price according to the Defendant’s sales contract, the restoration due to the cancellation of the sales contract, and the preliminary claim for the damages, and dismissed all the Defendant’s primary and preliminary claims for the cancellation of the ownership transfer.

Therefore, since only the defendant appealed and changed the counterclaim in exchange as stated in the purport of the claim, only the principal claim for the registration of the cancellation of the ownership transfer of a motor vehicle and the claim for the modified counterclaim(the claim for damages caused by illegal act) are subject to the judgment of the court.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the main claim

A. The reasoning of the judgment of this court as to this part of the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the corresponding part as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

B. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, on the 5th page 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, " shall not be seen." The testimony of the witness K alone is insufficient to recognize that the sales contract for the instant vehicle was effective between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it."

4. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff himself/herself is the name of the vehicle and is an agent who is not the name of the vehicle, and as his/her agent at the time of his/her transaction with the Defendant, while attending the site, the name in question differs from the agreed purchase price with the name in question, and the transaction account is