1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendants are to the plaintiff with regard to the motor vehicle indicated in the attached Form.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the second 20th 20th 20th 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) does not mean that “to purchase KRW 51,000,000” (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) is the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract with the agent C who was delegated with the authority to sell the instant automobile by the Defendants. As such, the Defendants, as the parties to the sales contract, are obligated to implement the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile as the Plaintiff.

B. Even if the power of representation is not recognized to C, C was in possession of the documents pertaining to the transfer of the instant motor vehicle and possessed the instant motor vehicle, and thus, C had a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff was entitled to conclude the instant sales contract on behalf of the Defendants.

Therefore, as to the instant sales contract, the Defendants asserted as an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act as a preparatory document dated November 5, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted as an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

shall be responsible.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. In light of the determination on the assertion of the right of representation, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that C was entrusted by the Defendants with the power to sell the instant motor vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. If it is intended to claim the effect of an expression agent in excess of the authority as stipulated in Article 126 of the Civil Act regarding the assertion of an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act, the other party is believed to have the right of representation on his/her own name in cases where he/she expresses or explicitly expresses his/her intent on his/her behalf or performs acts other