2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a DNA franchise and HG vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) including a personal vehicle damage security (only from KRW 200,000 to KRW 500,000 per accident to KRW 20% of the amount of damages) with respect to the instant vehicle.

B. On May 6, 2017, at around 20:20, the Plaintiff collisions with other vehicles parked in the parking lot in the Daegu Suwon-gu E apartment complex, and thus, destroyed the front left door of the instant vehicle. On May 8, 2017, the Plaintiff requested repair of the instant vehicle to the Motor Vehicle Maintenance Business Operator F. During that process, the Plaintiff delegated G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) with respect to the repair cost, etc. of the instant vehicle pursuant to Article 185 of the Insurance Business Act.

C. On May 12, 2017, G submitted a damage assessment statement calculated by adding the repair cost of the instant vehicle to KRW 727,120 (including value-added tax) to the Plaintiff. The part-time official fee per hour applied when calculating the repair cost was KRW 30,500, respectively.

On May 12, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 727,120 as repair cost of the instant vehicle to F in accordance with the details of the said damage evaluation.

E. Meanwhile, on May 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of insurance proceeds according to the above details of the damage evaluation. However, the Defendant asserted G’s content of the damage evaluation appointed by the Plaintiff, and did not pay insurance proceeds until the date of closing argument

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3, 5 to 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact that the insurer of the instant vehicle was liable to pay the insurance proceeds, the Plaintiff suffered damages to his own vehicle due to the occurrence of the instant vehicle, and the Defendant, the insurer of the instant vehicle, is equivalent to the repair cost of the instant vehicle due to the said accident.