A. On March 16, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendant to repair B Kararae vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) to the Defendant.

At the time, the instant motor vehicle was damaged by the fronterer and fronterer, central air duct, fresher, fresh, and fresher. Of the damaged parts, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to repair the rearer, central air duct, and fresh in KRW 3,00,00 (a new part of the damaged part of the car main body) and requested a D who operates the car repair company C to repair the said part of the damaged part.

B. Around July 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the completion of the re-repair of the front speecher, central air duct, and the chief air duct, and completed the repair of the lighting chief DNA around that time.

C. However, on September 4, 2013, the Plaintiff confirmed the contents of the renewal, and thereafter filed an objection to the amount of the repair cost requested by the Defendant, and subsequently recovered the instant vehicle. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant automobile repair contract and requested the Defendant to return parts, such as the steering headlight and the central waterway, which are kept separately from the instant vehicle to repair the said parts, and notified the Defendant of a written estimate for the repair cost and the repair cost and the separation of parts. The Defendant claimed for KRW 2,50,000,000 for the Plaintiff accompanied by a written estimate written by D, which states that the recycling cost is KRW 5,70,000, and KRW 786,500.

Afterwards, while disputes are pending on the delivery of parts kept by the Defendant, the Plaintiff notifies the Defendant of the termination of the instant automobile repair contract on or around January 14, 2014, and pays KRW 300,000 and KRW 300,000,00.