1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 51,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from November 11, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a person engaged in the secondhand trading business, and the Plaintiff was contacted with the Defendant to purchase vehicles to be used in the cargo transport business.

B. On July 30, 2014, the Defendant introduced a C4.5 tons truck, a second class vehicle in the year of 2007 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) to the Plaintiff as an article, and the Defendant around that time paid KRW 51 million to the Defendant with the money loaned by a financial institution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) paid KRW 51 million in advance upon the Defendant’s request before entering into a sales contract, and subsequently renounced the conclusion of a sales contract as a defect in the vehicle during the trial run and waiver thereof. As such, the Defendant shall return the said KRW 51 million to the Plaintiff.

② Even if a sales contract was concluded, since the sales contract was revoked on the ground of the Defendant’s deception or the Plaintiff’s mistake, the Defendant also must return the said KRW 51 million to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant paid KRW 51 million to the Plaintiff with the conclusion of a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking the return of money on the premise that there is no sales contract.

② The cancellation of a sales contract cannot be recognized because a vehicle defect alleged by the Plaintiff does not exist and a vehicle accident occurs due to a cause attributable to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the witness D’s testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff paid in advance money equivalent to the purchase price to the Defendant on the premise of the conclusion of the sales contract on the instant vehicle, but the subsequent conclusion of the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was not made, and the Defendant has the right to hold money equivalent to