1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 29, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 16,300,000 from the Defendant, who is engaged in the sales of used cars with the trade name called “C”, for KRW 16,30,000, a middle-sized BM320d Motor Vehicles (the details of the shop are as shown in the attached list; hereinafter “instant Motor Vehicles”).

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

At the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract, the Defendant explained to the Plaintiff that the instant motor vehicle was an accident-free motor vehicle, and the instant motor vehicle was an accident-free motor vehicle in the inspection record of the performance and condition of the used motor vehicle presented by the Defendant along with the above explanation to the Plaintiff.

C. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 17,483,770 in the sum of KRW 16,300,000 and KRW 1,183,770 in the Plaintiff’s future registration. On May 30, 2018, the Defendant completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant motor vehicle in the Plaintiff’s name, and delivered the said motor vehicle to the Plaintiff.

However, as a result of the close inspection and repair inspection of the instant motor vehicle conducted by the Plaintiff after the delivery of the instant motor vehicle, it was confirmed that the instant motor vehicle had been repaired due to the occurrence of an accident, and that there was a history of replacing and repairing major structural parts on several occasions due to frequent breakdowns before concluding the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Unlike the Defendant’s notice (a simple exchangeless vehicle), the Plaintiff’s instant vehicle is an accident vehicle, the parts of which were replaced and repaired several times due to the accident, etc., and the Plaintiff cancelled the instant sales contract as a duplicate of the instant complaint by means of the Defendant’s deception or mistake (each of the above claims is selective claims). Thus, the Defendant is the Defendant’s restitution.