1. From July 22, 2017 to May 16, 2018, the Defendant’s KRW 30.5 million to the Plaintiff as well as the Plaintiff’s annual interest.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet, which are freezing towers (hereinafter “instant motor vehicles”) at KRW 30.5 million.

On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff received the instant vehicle from the Defendant, and paid the full purchase price to the Defendant by the following day.

B. The instant vehicle can be operated only once it is determined as appropriate in regular inspection every six months, and the Plaintiff was judged as inappropriate in the regular inspection conducted around September 2016.

The main reason for the determination that the width, the width, and the height of the body of the vehicle considerably exceeds the permissible value was that of the vehicle.

C. The instant vehicle was a vehicle that could not pass a regular inspection because its part was excessively altered before the conclusion of the said sales contract.

Before the Plaintiff purchases the said vehicle, the specific inspection office called the “CAHA” was a timely determination of conformity.

The instant vehicle can not be operated unless the matters pointed out are corrected when it is judged that the said inappropriate is determined. In order to correct the load so that it does not exceed the permissible value, considerable expenses are incurred.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to revocation by deception and claim for damages

A. The gist of the assertion was well aware of the fact that the instant vehicle was illegally remodeled and cannot pass a regular inspection in a normal condition, and the Defendant concluded the said sales contract by deceiving the Plaintiff to the effect that the said vehicle was not unlawfully remodeled and did not inform the Plaintiff of the fact that the said vehicle was unlawfully remodeled.

Therefore, the above contract is revoked for the defendant's deception, and the damage incurred by the plaintiff due to the above contract is 32,829.