1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff sold D the benzros 2648S motor vehicles (vehicle number:C; hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) owned by the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant at KRW 13.5 million.

(hereinafter “instant trade”). (b)

D On August 21, 2013, transferred the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, after deducting the balance of the installment payments and brokerage fees of the vehicle, KRW 56,357,257, and received the instant vehicle. On August 21, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted the remainder 5,210,000 won to the Plaintiff.

C. On October 1, 2013, D requested an enterprise (hereinafter “large enterprise”) to repair the instant vehicle as a result of the occurrence of a high-speed noise from a weather change, and as a result of the inspection, it was found that the equipment was damaged due to the damage of the fashion rink, and as a result, the repair cost of KRW 15,523,310 was incurred, such as the replacement of the fashion to a medium fashion.

There was an agreement between the Plaintiff and D that the Plaintiff will pay the repair cost on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, on October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 14 million to E, who is an employee of the company affiliated with the company affiliated with the company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, Gap 11-2, Eul 11-3, and the result of fact inquiry into the company of the court of this case, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant sold the instant vehicle without notifying the occurrence of a human life accident while driving the instant vehicle, and since the accident is the cause of the replacement, the Defendant should pay the amount equivalent to the amount of the repair cost to D.

However, since the plaintiff paid the repair cost on behalf of the defendant, the defendant eventually makes an unjust enrichment of the amount of the repair cost.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was no less than anything at the time of the instant sale. Since D received the instant vehicle and requested repair at least 40 days after the lapse of 40 days, the cause of the replacement is attributable to D’s poor management.