1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims against the above revocation.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company that concludes with the Republic of Korea Co., Ltd., a domestic corporation of Audioi in Germany with respect to the domestic sale and maintenance of Audio-motor vehicles, and is engaged in the said Audio-sale business, etc. B from March 2, 2011 to March 31, 2011, and C served as business employees at the Defendant’s B’s branch office during the period from March 2, 201 to March 31, 201, and the Plaintiff is C’s

B. From March 201, the Plaintiff was recommended by C to purchase at KRW 45,235,00 at the market price of KRW 54,00,00 at KRW 17% discount (at KRW 45,235,00, the price of the instant vehicle at KRW 54,000 at the market price (at KRW 54,000). On March 24, 2011, the Plaintiff sold the mixed CR-VDD car owned by the Plaintiff at KRW 25,70,000, and then remitted KRW 25,70,000 on the same day to C’s personal account.

C. C used 25,700,000 won remitted from the Plaintiff for personal use.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for damages due to nonperformance

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) on March 24, 201, through C, the Defendant, a business employee of the Defendant, purchased the instant automobile at KRW 45,235,00; and (b) paid KRW 25,70,000 out of the purchase price; (c) the Defendant refused to perform the obligation to deliver the said automobile while denying the conclusion of the purchase and sale contract with the Plaintiff; (d) accordingly, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 25,70,000, equivalent to the purchase price paid by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation as above, and delay damages therefrom.

B. The reasoning of the judgment is as follows: Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the testimony and whole pleadings of the first instance court E and F.