1. The part against Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

2. Defendant C is co-defendant B of the first instance trial.

1. According to the purport of Gap's evidence No. 1 and No. 23 as to the claim against defendant Eul and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff requested co-defendant Eul of the first instance trial to sell the HWz car owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant Eul received the above vehicle from co-defendant D of the first instance trial, using the plaintiff's certificate of personal seal impression, and it can be recognized that the defendant Eul forged the certificate of personal seal impression, the vehicle sales contract, the vehicle operation permit, the vehicle operation permit, the vehicle abandonment certificate, and the transfer delegation letter and then sold the above vehicle to the defendant Eul. Thus, the defendant Eul is jointly and severally liable with the co-defendant of the first instance trial, the joint tortfeasor of the first instance trial, to pay the plaintiff the damages amounting to 23,000,000 won equivalent to the sale price of the above vehicle and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 14, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the claim against Defendant E are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is accepted on the ground of its reason, and the claim against the defendant E is dismissed on the ground of its reason. Since the part against the plaintiff against the defendant C among the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the ground of its conclusion, it is revoked, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant E is dismissed on the ground of its reason. It is so decided as per Disposition