A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Kystex vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of CMW M3 vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On February 9, 2015, around 20:25, the Plaintiff’s vehicle turned down due to road ice while driving along a road on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was parked on the right side of the road, following the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the right side of the road, at around 20:25, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). C.

Due to the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle was destroyed by the rearer, the left-hand fence, etc., and the repair cost is the sum of KRW 1,946,131.

From February 10, 2015 to March 2, 2015, the Defendant loaned 13,100,919 won (=891,219 won x 70%) in total on the basis of 891,219 won per day rental fee to the Defendant. The Defendant borrowed 13,100,919 won (=891,219 won x 21 days x 70%) in 21 days from February 10, 2015 to March 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1 to 4, Gap's evidence 7, 8, Eul's evidence 1 to 4, Eul's evidence 10, Eul's evidence 12 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① The instant accident destroyed the fences behind the Defendant’s vehicle and the left-hand side, and the repair cost was calculated as KRW 1,001,00.

② The noise gauge of the Defendant vehicle cannot be confirmed as being damaged by the instant accident while corrosion is in progress.

③ The Defendant asserts that, by the instant accident, Defendant’s vehicle was pushed ahead of the right side and the wheelchairs was damaged by the wheel. However, the type of damage of the wheelchairs is the type that occurs in the front of the road, damage is done to the front of the sidewalk’s wheel, damage is done to the front of the sidewalk’s wheel at a level of 5cc higher than the front of the sidewalk’s wheel, and the front of the wheel.