Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed about the part against the counterclaim, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the part of the counterclaim claim.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part concerning paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as the next paragraph (3). Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is as follows: ① from July 14, 2014 to September 30, 2019, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the aggregate of KRW 5,745,660, and ② ex officio cancellation of registration due to failure to inspect the instant vehicle and penalty surcharge of KRW 900,000 due to failure to pay the number plate, ③ exemption fees of KRW 2,00,000 due to failure to conduct regular inspections; KRW 265,080 due to failure to conduct regular inspections; KRW 344,720 due to failure to pay a fine for negligence; KRW 75,860 due to speed violations; KRW 3,385,60 due to failure to pay the instant vehicle; KRW 300,00,000 due to failure to pay the instant vehicle; KRW 365,720 due to failure to pay the instant vehicle; KRW 385,660 due to delay violations; KRW 385,660,31.

The deductible period of the vehicle number model shall be the YF Engine of July 14, 2014 from July 14, 2014 to July 14, 2015, YF YF YF YF YF YF YY YF YF YF YY 1,08,400 from July 14, 2015 to July 14, 2016 from July 14, 2016 to December 420, 20,170 from July 3, 2016; YF YF Y 1, 30,000 from July 14, 2016 to July 14, 2017 to 30, 2014; YF YY 1,02,480 won from July 1, 2018 to 18,74, 2017

B. The part of the claim for insurance premium paid by the Defendant to the Defendant is entirely an amount under the instant contract during the contract period.