A. The Counterclaim Plaintiff is the owner of the CF vehicle (hereinafter “victim”) and the Counterclaim Defendant is the owner of DFF vehicle (hereinafter “AF vehicle”).

B. On October 7, 2015, the counterclaim Defendant caused an accident to shock the back of the damaged vehicle that had been driven by the driver due to the negligence of failing to perform the duty of the Jeonju City, while driving a sea vehicle on the underground level in the area located in the Yongsan-gu Bridge-gu Bridge-dong, Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City on October 18:28.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). C.

On December 8, 2015, the insurance company of the sea-going vehicle (Seoul Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.) paid 2,500,000 won as part of the damages compensation to the Lessee.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 and 4-1 and 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Due to the instant traffic accident, the damaged vehicle suffered damages in KRW 3,327,50,00 of the repair cost due to the external damage and KRW 19,800,000 of the repair cost due to the internal damage, such as the failure of fuel high-tension pumps.

Therefore, the counterclaim Defendant is obliged to pay 20,627,50 won in the balance of the repair cost after deducting 2,500,000 won from the insurance company’s total repair cost from the 23,127,500 won and damages for delay.

B. The repair cost due to the external damage of a vehicle damaged by a counterclaim Defendant does not exceed KRW 2,500,000, and there is no causal link between the internal damage and the instant traffic accident. Ultimately, there is no liability for damages against the counterclaim Defendant’s counterclaim due to the instant traffic accident.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, the counterclaim Defendant is liable to compensate the counterclaim for the damages incurred by the instant traffic accident.

B. In full view of the records in Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings due to damage caused by the outside damage of the damaged vehicle, the repair cost incurred by the outside damage of the damaged vehicle