A. The plaintiff is an individual business operator who operates a car luminous and sshing service business in the trade name of B, and the defendant deals with the business of paying repair costs to the company running a non-life insurance business where the defendant damaged another vehicle as the insured vehicle.

B. Around 18:22 on June 1, 2015, the Defendant’s insured Party C concealed the damaged vehicle with the vehicle driven by himself (hereinafter “victim”) in 2005-type clurr 300C D car (hereinafter “victims”) and damaged the fronter, lefter, etc. of the damaged vehicle.

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

On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff started crowdfunding, luminous, D/S painting construction, etc. on the part of the accident of the damaged vehicle, and completed the work on July 6, 2015.

The Plaintiff calculated the aforementioned estimate of repair costs as KRW 7,520,00 (excluding value-added tax) and claimed the payment thereof to the Defendant. However, around August 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a letter that the Defendant decided the repair cost to be paid as insurance money to KRW 1,346,00.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, each video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The fact that the Defendant, who is the insurer of the damaged vehicle, is obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the repair cost to the Plaintiff who accepted the damaged vehicle is not a dispute between the parties.

However, the Plaintiff asserts that the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle is KRW 7,520,000, while the Defendant asserts that only KRW 1,346,000 is required, the issue of the instant case is whether the work performed by the Plaintiff is necessary to repair the damaged vehicle due to the instant accident, and whether the amount is appropriate.

A motor vehicle maintenance business operator shall subscribe for insurance, etc.