1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and evidence Nos. 1, the plaintiff was indicted on the facts that the back door of the plaintiff's vehicle was damaged by the plaintiff's damage at the front parking lot of 108, Jung-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, on December 3, 2013. ② The defendant is obliged to compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused by the above damage because the defendant was found not guilty on the ground that the defendant's damage to the plaintiff's vehicle was caused by negligence, not intentional negligence.

(1) The defendant asserts that D has damaged the plaintiff's vehicle, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and it is acknowledged that the defendant has consistently asserted that D and D had faced with the plaintiff's vehicle parked adjacent to the plaintiff's vehicle in the course of making the door of D vehicle and making ditches, and even if D's assertion and actions are deemed to have caused the plaintiff's damage to the vehicle, the defendant is liable for damages as one joint tortfeasor, and the defendant is liable for damages as a joint tortfeasor. 2. The defendant's argument is without merit. In full view of the evidence and the whole arguments presented prior to the judgment on the scope of liability for damages, the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff has paid the rental car cost of KRW 260,00, 410,000 and value-added tax on the left side and value-added tax on it. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's vehicle unit repair cost 560.