1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,286,667 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from July 23, 2016 to October 19, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Clar 300C Vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and the Defendant is the person who operates the E station in Jeju City D.

B. On May 24, 2016, F, the representative director of the Plaintiff, operated the instant vehicle at around 12:38, and became gas station at the instant oil station.

C. The Plaintiff, at the above gas station, requested the Defendant’s employees to stop oil with the view to stopping the instant vehicle, which is a diesel vehicle, but the said employees paid the gasoline 67.14 liter on the said vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

The Plaintiff completed the gas station oil as above and driven around 200 meters on the instant vehicle, and subsequently generated vibration on the instant vehicle, the Plaintiff: (a) left the train; and (b) recognized the fact that gasoline, which is not the transit on the said vehicle, was oiled, and requested the G for the maintenance of the gasoline.

E. G replaced the fuel pumps, fuel dust, high voltage pumps, etc. of the instant vehicle, and subsequently claimed KRW 17,582,180 as repair cost to the Plaintiff around October 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, Eul 2 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the recognition of the liability for damages, although the person engaged in the oiling service has the duty of care to verify the kind of fuel used by the vehicle seeking to provide oil, select the fuel suitable for it, the defendant's employees neglected to do so and caused damage to the fuel system equipment by oiling gasoline on the instant vehicle using light oil, so the defendant's employees are liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the instant accident that occurred during their duties as the employer of the above employees.

However, even though the Plaintiff did not discover the gasoline in the instant vehicle while being gasolineed, it did not verify that the Plaintiff was issued a receipt indicating that gasoline was gasing even after the completion of gasolineing.