1. The Defendant is limited to the cause of sale on March 18, 201 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the respective statements and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including the number of branch numbers), it is recognized that on March 18, 2011, the plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the defendant as to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "motor vehicles of this case") on which the plaintiff owned by the plaintiff and sold the motor vehicles of this case to the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case"), and that the plaintiff received the above sales price from the defendant pursuant to the sales contract of this case at that time, and delivered the documents related to the registration of transfer of ownership concerning the motor vehicles of this case to the defendant.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant motor vehicle from the Plaintiff on March 18, 201 according to the instant sales contract, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the engine of the instant motor vehicle was destroyed while operating the instant motor vehicle upon delivery from the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant would return the instant motor vehicle to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not comply therewith.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion appears to have cancelled the instant sales contract due to the engine engine shop of the instant motor vehicle, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rescission of the instant sales contract. Rather, according to the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 4 and the entire pleadings, the Defendant filed a civil suit against the Plaintiff seeking damages on the ground of the engine engine height of the instant motor vehicle, and on September 27, 2011, the conciliation was concluded to pay KRW 1,200,000 to the Defendant for the repair cost of the instant motor vehicle.