A. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 5 and No. 6-1 of evidence Nos. 6-1 and all pleadings, since around 5:00 on Nov. 9, 2013, the Selection C is recognized as a fact that the Plaintiff-owned car operation strawer was destroyed by the Plaintiff-owned car operation strawer (hereinafter “instant tort”), the Selection C is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the aforementioned tort.

B. 1) Repair expenses: 2,464,40 won (each evidence No. 2 and No. 5) 2: 1.8 million won (each statement No. 3 and No. 7), the Plaintiff sought compensation for damages. However, in general, in a case where a property right is infringed due to other person’s tort, etc., mental suffering is recovered from compensation for property damage, and thus, in a case where a property right is damaged due to other person’s tort, which is not recoverable from compensation for property damage, the perpetrator may claim compensation for such damage only when he knew or could have known such circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Da82507, Mar. 18, 2004). Inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for damages has caused mental suffering that cannot be recovered from property damage due to the pertinent tort, the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for damages is not acceptable.

C. The aforementioned bidder's defense of comparative negligence set-off by the designated party C set up a defense that the plaintiff parked the said car at a place other than the parking lot, which contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damages, and thus, such circumstance should be the ground for offsetting negligence. However, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff illegally parked the said car to contribute to the occurrence and expansion of damages, and therefore, the aforementioned defense is without merit.

Accordingly, the Appointor C shall be the representative.