Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the order to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 29, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale of used cars (hereinafter “instant used cars”) with the Defendant, a seller of used cars, to purchase KRW 39 million for used cars owned D (hereinafter “instant used cars”) from the Defendant, who is a seller of used cars, and received a transfer registration of ownership of the instant used cars on June 1, 2018.

B. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 50 million as the sales price for the instant used vehicle by transferring money to a place ordered by the Defendant.

C. The Defendant was indicted for fraud as to the instant used car sales contract, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2.5 million by the Incheon District Court 2019 High Court Decision 2464, and the facts constituting the crime are as follows.

On May 29, 2018, the Defendant confirmed the advertising of the second class, carried by the Defendant, etc., and sold the second class vehicle of this case to the Plaintiff who visited the Plaintiff at KRW 17.8 million, and led the contract.

During the preparation of the contract, the Plaintiff reported that the purchase price is KRW 50 million, which was written by the Defendant, but the Defendant led to time on the ground that the contract cancellation is impossible, and deceiving the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would only purchase the said vehicle on the following grounds: “It is necessary to purchase the vehicle in a way that the next value is 50 million won at the original 64.5 million won, and that the next value is 50 million won.”

The defendant was obtained from the plaintiff the sum of KRW 50 million in the name of the purchase price of the vehicle, KRW 3450,000 in the registration fee, KRW 300,000 in the purchase and sale brokerage fee, and KRW 200,000 in the oil price, and acquired by fraud from the plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion (the plaintiff's selective claim) received the payment of KRW 50 million exceeding the vehicle price of KRW 39 million as stipulated in the contract for the sales of used cars of this case, and thus, the defendant has a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the difference, or has deceiving the plaintiff.