1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount:

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff claimed damages equivalent to the loan fee and the price decline against the Defendant, and the first instance court partly accepted the loan fee and dismissed the remainder of the claim.

Since only the defendant appealed against this, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the defendant as to the damage equivalent to the above loan fee.

2. Basic facts

A. On October 29, 2014, around 08:15, 2014, B driven D-learning (hereinafter “d-learning vehicle”) at the Busan apartment parking lot, Busan, the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to D-learning vehicles owned by the Plaintiff, with the front right right right right right right right and wheels of E-U.S. E-U. S. E (hereinafter “victim”) parked (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

B. On October 29, 2014, immediately after the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff leased and used an ATR vehicle from the vehicle leasing business entity for 135 days from Oct. 29, 2014 to Mar. 12, 2015 (hereinafter “instant siren”).

C. The rent for the first 30 days was paid by the Defendant, an insurance company of the sea vehicle, and the rent for the second two months thereafter was disposed of as a special contract for self-insurance purchased by the Plaintiff, and the remaining period from January 28, 2015 to March 12, 2015, the rent for 11,036,666 won was paid at its own expense on March 18, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, 10, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (including each number), video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion caused damage to the fronter of the damaged vehicle, etc. due to the instant accident, and the repair period was required for a considerable period of time due to the need to obtain parts of the damaged vehicle. Accordingly, the Plaintiff borrowed the instant siren from the vehicle leasing company.

The defendant.