beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a request from C, a branch of C, a branch of D (hereinafter “D”); and (b) received a request from C, a branch of F (hereinafter “F”), who is the representative of D (hereinafter “F”); and (c) received a request from C, a representative of D (hereinafter “D”); and (d) received a recommendation from the Plaintiff, a “small and Medium D D Dr” of F.
B. The Plaintiff decided to purchase the instant vehicle, and deposited KRW 15 million on Nov. 7, 2017 in D and KRW 5 million on the following day, respectively. However, the sales contract is the same month by F.
9. D to purchase the instant vehicle in KRW 20 million from D, and the transfer of ownership of the instant vehicle was registered as F in the same day.
C. On November 30, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the instant vehicle to G in KRW 23.5 million; (b) prepared a sales contract between F and G; and (c) had the Plaintiff registered the ownership transfer of the instant vehicle to G on the same day.
G On December 1, 2017, upon discovering any defect while driving the instant vehicle by acquiring the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff and requesting the repair of the instant vehicle, the Plaintiff repaired the instant vehicle from H and I, and then stores the instant vehicle.
[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff’s claim as of August 10, 2019 and the written application for modification of the cause of the claim are that C is an execution agent for the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant has to preserve the repair cost of the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Act. However, although the Plaintiff’s agent made a statement to the effect that the said claim was withdrawn at the third day of pleading opened on August 14, 2019, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any contractual relationship with the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is against the Plaintiff.