Attached Form

With respect to the accident described in the list, the plaintiff's defendants.

A. A. D, around 17:20 on August 31, 2014, operated NFbea (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and entered the automatic set of the vehicle installed in the G filling station located in the G filling station, which is jointly operated by the Defendants, for rent-off (hereinafter “the instant detailed set of vehicles”). At the time of permanent residence operated by the Defendants, D, due to the negligence setting the direction of entry, i.e., the part on the left side of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the entrance of the instant detailed set of the direction of entry, i.e., the part on the left side of the instant detailed set of vehicles.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

On September 1, 2014, the Defendants notified C, a repairer, a repairer, of the instant accident, and requested C to repair the instant detailed period, and C, by October 9, 2014, accepted the instant detailed devices, such as replacing licenses and external plates, etc. < Amended by Act No. 1283, Oct. 9, 2014>

The Defendants paid KRW 7,612,957 to C with repair costs, and thereafter submitted a tax invoice for issuance C and received a refund of KRW 692,087.

C. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with D on the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 2 through 5 (including each number, if any) or video, Gap witness C's testimony at the first instance court, the result of the examination of CCTV by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The instant accident is a minor accident that: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the instant chassis; (b) the front left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the left side of the entrance of the instant chassis are protruding the Plaintiff’s front side of the vehicle in the process of making minor contact with the Plaintiff’s front side of the instant chassis; (c) immediately after the instant accident, the instant tea was normally operated; and (d) the parts that the Defendants replaced as installed in March 2010 and replaced by the Defendants were not due to the instant accident, but to have been replaced by the direction since four years and nine months have passed since the instant accident was installed.