The defendant's Goyang District Court 2019 Ghana 89784 compensation case against the plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of the arguments as stated in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant brought a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the payment of KRW 2,868,755 for property damage caused by the damage of a motor vehicle by Goyang-gu District Court 2019Daso8784 (i.e., vehicle repair cost of KRW 2,074,255), mental damage compensation of KRW 4,131,245 (i.e., vehicle repair cost of KRW 794,50), and the above court made a decision of performance recommendation identical to the defendant's claim on September 20, 2019 (hereinafter "decision of performance recommendation of this case"). The decision of performance recommendation of this case can be acknowledged as having no objection by the plaintiff, and it becomes final and conclusive around that time.

2. Determination

A. Although the decision on performance recommendation where the burden of proof exists does not take place even if res judicata has become final and conclusive, the restriction is not applied to a lawsuit seeking an objection against it pursuant to the time limit of res judicata (Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). In a lawsuit seeking the objection, the determination of all the claims indicated in the decision on performance recommendation may be made on the grounds of the claim. In this case, the burden of proof on the existence or establishment of the claim is against the obligee, i.e., the “Defendant” in the lawsuit claiming the objection

B. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings on the video of the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages caused by the Plaintiff’s act, since it was acknowledged that the Plaintiff, on June 24, 2019, intended to move a vehicle owned by the Defendant and directly move the vehicle owned by the Defendant without a telephone that the Plaintiff would move the vehicle to the Defendant.

(c) health class 1, evidence Nos. 1 through 3, evidence Nos. 3 and 6, evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the scope of the damage.

In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, the following circumstances, namely, ① the vehicle owned by the Defendant, which the Plaintiff had dual parking, is pushed ahead of the vehicle by hand, is a slicker.