1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, and

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of the arguments in Evidence A, Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including virtual numbers) and the establishment of the claim for damages due to a tort, Defendant C and D, a managing Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) around April 23, 2015, read as “an alteration into the vehicle of the head of the 2015 MKX-type MX-type 2015” and read as “the instant vehicle” by deceiving the Plaintiff as “the instant vehicle.

A) The facts can be acknowledged that Defendant C and D sold after remodeling. Such acts constitute tort. As such, the above Defendants and Defendant C’s representative are liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as joint tortfeasor (Article 750, Article 760(1) of the Civil Act). B. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was liable to compensate for damages incurred by the Plaintiff as joint tortfeasor (Article 750, Article 760(1) of the Civil Act). Of the vehicle cost of KRW 85,00,000 paid to the Defendants by the Defendants’ tort, the Plaintiff’s assertion that 45,00,000,000 of the vehicle cost of the 2013 model vehicle cost of the 2013 model vehicle at the time, deducted KRW 40,00,00,000, and the consumption goods exchange service period provided by the vehicle manufacturer at its own expense. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff suffered damages by asserting that the Plaintiff sustained damages of KRW 53,409,100.

2. In regard to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the difference between the vehicle price paid by the Plaintiff and the vehicle price paid first to determine on the damage equivalent to the difference between the vehicle price paid by the Plaintiff and the vehicle price delivered, and on the damages equivalent to the difference between the actual delivery price of the vehicle, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above part of the damage suffered by the Plaintiff reaches KRW 45,00,000 on the sole basis of the statements of evidence Nos. 3, 10, 12, 13, and 14, and the video of evidence No.

However, as a result of the Defendants’ deception, the Plaintiff suffered damages corresponding to the decline in the value of the vehicle due to the progress of the annual process by paying the vehicle price corresponding to the new vehicle price.