1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) under which the Plaintiff acquired a vehicle (automobile registration number: C, car type: large passenger, car name: BX212; hereinafter referred to as “instant vehicle”) in the amount of KRW 27 million from the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant vehicle”) and provided that “A vehicle name is kept in the name of the Defendant and is operated in the name of the Defendant. ② The actual owner of the instant vehicle is the Plaintiff. ② The actual owner of the instant vehicle: ③ The down payment of the instant vehicle is KRW 10 million and the contract is re-preparation after the payment of intermediate payment and remainder.”

B. On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 10 million as the down payment of the instant contract, and KRW 5 million as the intermediate payment of the instant contract on April 20, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 and 6 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case was cancelled by deception, in fact, even though the instant vehicle is not a business vehicle that is allowed to carry on the automobile transport business, and even though the Defendant did not obtain lawful qualification to carry on the automobile transport business, since the Defendant had taken over the instant vehicle and entered into the instant contract under the name of the Defendant, as if the Defendant could carry on the lawful automobile transport business by deceiving the Plaintiff, it would be possible to carry on the instant vehicle transport business by using the instant vehicle, and thus, the contract of this case was cancelled by declaration of intent by deception. 2) According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, according to the facts that the Defendant carried on the instant vehicle with D’s trade name and did not obtain a separate license to carry on the automobile transport business, it is recognized that the instant vehicle is a private

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence No. 4, and the purport of the entire argument, are the intermediate payment and remainder as follows.