1. With respect to traffic accidents listed in attached Form 1, the Plaintiff’s Defendants based on a mutual aid agreement listed in attached Form 2.

1. Basic facts

(a) Limited Liability Company D is a chartered bus transport business entity and is the owner of E bus;

The plaintiff is a mutual aid association established pursuant to Article 61 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, and entered into a mutual aid agreement with D in attached Form 2.

B. F, around 14:50 on September 28, 2016, while driving an E bus and proceeding with the H street in the vicinity of Gwangju Northern-gu G, F was shocked by the INAS car (hereinafter “the instant car”) owned by Defendant B and driven by Defendant B in the signal atmosphere at the above location.

(hereinafter, this case’s traffic accident). (b)

The Defendant Limited Partnership Company C (hereinafter, Defendant Company), a motor vehicle maintenance business entity, repaired the instant motor vehicle, and on November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 14,443,319 in total (62 items, such as departure, exchange, printing, painting, etc., and required parts: 140 items).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the repair cost of the instant vehicle is 9,192,460 won (i.e., the amount assessed to KRW 4,655,730, the amount assessed to KRW 4,356,00, the amount assessed to KRW 180,730, the amount assessed to KRW 4,356,00, the amount assessed to KRW 180,000, and there is no obligation of the Plaintiff

B. In light of the Defendants’ assertion regarding the interest in confirmation as to the interest in confirmation, as seen earlier, the Defendant Company received the instant automobile repair and claimed the Plaintiff to repair the instant automobile, and thus, the Defendant Company is qualified as the assignee of the right to claim insurance from the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company also pays the repair cost to the Defendant Company and then claims insurance money equivalent to the repair cost again to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is in the position of claiming insurance money equivalent to the repair cost.

(c).