1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Co., Ltd.: (a) 21,500,000 won against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related thereto from October 21, 2015.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in Gap-C, the plaintiff entered into a motor vehicle sales contract with the defendant AB (hereinafter "the defendant company") on April 29, 2014, stating that the plaintiff would purchase the motor vehicle as the purchase price of KRW 19.5 million (hereinafter "the sales contract of this case") with the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the motor vehicle of this case"), and the seller agreed to inform the buyer of the performance and state of the inspection of the motor vehicle in accordance with Article 58(1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, and the plaintiff expressed his/her intention to cancel the sales contract of this case on the ground of the defect in the motor vehicle of this case, and the copy of the complaint of this case containing the declaration of intention reaches the defendant company on October 20, 2015.

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. (1) Whether to establish the warranty liability, etc. (1) the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) the Plaintiff’s rescission of the sales contract of this case because it could not achieve the purpose of the sales contract due to the defect of the engine of the instant automobile, and thus, the Defendant Company returned the sales price of KRW 19.5 million to its original state in accordance with Articles 580(1) and 575(1) of the Civil Act. The Defendant Company paid KRW 2 million damages to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff incurred expenses equivalent to KRW 2 million in repairing the instant automobile, and the Defendant Company paid KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff. (2) The Defendant Company did not notify the Plaintiff of the defect that it was impossible for the Plaintiff to repair the instant automobile as a broker for the instant automobile sales without notifying the Plaintiff of the defect that the Plaintiff sold the instant automobile to the Plaintiff through D, and thus, Defendant C paid damages equivalent to the sales price of the instant automobile to the Plaintiff.

(B) The Defendant C explained Defendant C’s counterclaim that there is any error in the instant vehicle engine.

(2) The judgment of this Court (A) A2, and .