A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Nonparty B on the C Freight Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and Nonparty D is the owner of the E-wheeled Automobile (DUTI) (DUTI 2007 1098S, hereinafter “the instant Obaba”).

B. B, around 23:40 on March 28, 2014, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and entering the C-A-A-A-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U

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

Due to the instant accident, the instant Orala was destroyed due to the instant accident, and D, which used the instant Orala for the purpose of commuting, leased from the Defendant operating the Oralaba rental company from March 29, 2014 to April 19, 2014, one Orala (MV-Aststst) leased from the Defendant operating the Oralaba rental company, while transferring a claim equivalent to the rental fee to the Defendant, and granting the right of representation regarding the notice of the assignment of claims, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact of the assignment of claims.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Gap 17 and 18 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserted 1) The plaintiff asserts that the appropriate repair period of the Oratob in this case is three days, and during that period, the lending fee based on the Internet lending fee for a passenger with the same kind of car as the Oratob in the price is 178,200 won (=59,400 won x 3 days). If D's negligence 20% is offset against the accident of this case, the insurance money to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant does not exceed 142,560 won (=178,200 won x 80%). 2) In this regard, the defendant asserts that in the case of a high-priced imported Oratob in this case, such as Oratob in this case, the purchase period of parts is at least three weeks, and the lending fee is also more than that of ordinary automobiles.