beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff, from the Defendant C, the husband of the Defendant B, sought an explanation on the smoke and accident of the Defendant B-owned Daba (hereinafter “instant Oba”), and decided to purchase KRW 21.1 million in the purchase price.
B. On the same day, the Plaintiff visited the Gwangju Mine Office with the Defendants, and at least, Defendant B issued a certificate of disuse of a two-wheeled automobile and a certificate of personal seal impression of the said Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1.1 million out of the purchase price to Defendant B’s account, paid the remainder of KRW 20 million to the Defendants in cash. On the same day, the Plaintiff transported the instant Obane to Daegu where the Plaintiff resides.
C. On February 26, 2016, the following day, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant C a mobile phone text message stating that the instant Ototoba’s engine case, pictures and pictures damaged by the engine fluor’s engine fluor and that “the president was a fluoring accident,” and that the Plaintiff claimed refund of the purchase price and damages through mobile phone text messages and content-certified mail, etc. for several times.
On February 27, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) requested repair of the instant Otobane to the “E”, which is the repair store of Otobane located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu; and (b) did not operate the instant Obane until now.
【Fact- without dispute over the basis of recognition】 The entries or images of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, and 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. Although the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was damaged due to an accident in 2007, the Defendants explained to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant purchase and sale that the instant Otoba formula was 2008, and that it was an accident-free accident.
Therefore, the Defendants are therefore.