1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On March 1, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that, on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff requested one repair at the point of free trade, taking a part of the Plaintiff’s car free trade, and one repair was carried out at the point of free trade, and the Defendant, an employee of the branch of C, purchased four different kinds of products from the Defendant, namely, four different kinds of products from the Defendant, on the ground that “the Defendant, as an employee of the branch of C, has to replace four different products since the previous type of products are no longer produced or supplied.”

(hereinafter “instant sales contract.” However, given that the existing other products have been continuously produced and supplied, the Defendant’s selling different types of different different different terms to the Plaintiff, while the said other terms were no longer produced and supplied, constitutes deception.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s rescission of the instant sales contract on the ground of fraud, and returned four copies purchased from the Defendant to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay 540,000 won and delay damages to the Plaintiff as compensation for restitution following the rescission of the contract, restitution of unjust enrichment, or tort.

B. The evidence submitted by the court below is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant had deceptioned the Plaintiff as alleged in the Plaintiff’s assertion. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant, who is an employee of C branch, obtained a profit equivalent to the purchase price as a party to the instant sales contract without any legal ground, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.