1. The Defendants jointly cooperate with the Plaintiff on the delivery of automobiles listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, jointly with the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the defendants deceiving the plaintiff and received money in the name of the purchase price of the automobile as follows.

A. On December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the instant automobile, which is a secondhand car (F) operated by Defendant B, and purchased at KRW 20 million.

B. The instant motor vehicle was originally purchased from a third party by Defendant E, who works in a middle and high-class trader, but was in charge of mediating the instant motor vehicle at the buyer’s request. However, the Defendant C, who is the motor vehicle, was in charge of mediating the relevant trade at the buyer’s request.

C. Although the instant motor vehicle was a model in 2012, it was not long, there was an occurrence of at least three accidents between around October 2012 and around September 2014, and the total amount of repair costs due to the three accidents was considerably large enough to exceed KRW 19 million.

In addition, due to the foregoing accidents, there were damages caused by the traces, such as the plate and the string, the string fluor, and the members with a strings on the major framework, such as the members with a strings. D.

Nevertheless, Defendant E, Defendant B, and C were involved in an accident without any defects in the structure and devices of the instant vehicle. Defendant D, at the request of the said Defendants, prepared and provided a record of the used cars performance and condition inspection in the name of the Korea Automobile Diagnosis and Guarantee Association, a corporate association, with the content that the instant vehicle is a non-accidentd vehicle without any trace or damage, such as printing, receipt, exchange, etc. on the vehicle.

E. The Plaintiff, with no professional knowledge and experience in the middle and high-ranking vehicle, is erroneous as a defective vehicle on the basis of the explanation of Defendant C and the entry of the record of inspection of the performance and condition of the above used vehicle. The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the instant automobile and entered into the contract on