1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) shocked the Plaintiff’s Obane (hereinafter “the instant Obane”); and (b) went beyond the right side of the Obane.

(hereinafter “instant No. 1 accident”). (b)

이 사건 제1사고 후 원고와 피고가 보험처리에 관하여 의논하던 중 피고가 이 사건 오토바이를 살펴보다가 무심결에 엑셀을 살짝 당기면서 시동이 걸려 있던 이 사건 오토바이가 한 걸음 정도 전진하게 되었는데, 그 과정에서 이 사건 오토바이가 기우뚱하며 좌측에 있던 벽에 기대게 되었다

(hereinafter referred to as "the second accident of this case" and, when referring to the second and second accident of this case, hereinafter "each accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap's statements, 1, 3, and 6, and Eul's evidence Nos. 2 (including additional numbers), video, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the second accident of this case caused damage which requires repair equivalent to a total of KRW 908,200 on the Oral part of this case, and that the defendant is liable for compensating for the damage caused by the second accident of this case.

3. In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the defendant’s insurance company paid to the plaintiff approximately KRW 3,00,000, and at the time, the plaintiff asserted that the damages incurred by the second accident of this case among the damages caused by each accident of this case would be KRW 908,200, among the damages caused by the accident of this case, the part was not included in the scope of the accident that occurred during the operation of the vehicle. ② Even after video, the second accident of this case did not merely go beyond the floor, but was expected to go against the wall, and thus, the defendant was not able to pay the error of this case.