1. The Plaintiff’s obligation to pay insurance proceeds to the Defendant regarding vehicles listed in the separate sheet 1 shall be KRW 23,719,781.

1. In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the defendant, after repairing the vehicle of this case, claimed KRW 44,023,828 as stated in the "amount claimed by the defendant" column in the attached Table 1 of the annexed Table No. 1 to the plaintiff, who is an automobile insurance company, as the defendant. The defendant calculated the repair cost by 36,000 won per hour for the vehicle of 2,3 and 24,000 won for the remaining vehicles, and the repair cost per hour for the vehicle of 2,30 won for the vehicle of this case.

2. On June 19, 2010, the Defendant asserts that KRW 25,877 to KRW 30,729 should be applied on a reasonable hourly basis when adding the rate of inflation and 5.52% from the reasonable maintenance charges of automobile insurance published by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on June 19, 2010 to KRW 21,553 to KRW 24,252.

However, the defendant himself claims repair costs on the premise that the remaining vehicles except for the vehicles 2 and 3 are 24,000 won per hour for the plaintiff, as seen earlier. There is no specific assertion and proof on the fact that there are special circumstances to recognize that the amount exceeds 28,000 won recognized by the plaintiff as a part of the time for the 2 and 3 vehicles, and that the 2 and 3 vehicles per hour for the remaining vehicles are 28,000 won for the vehicle and 24,000 won for the remaining vehicles.

3. As to the items of work

A. After the Defendant’s assertion was published by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in 2005, the new type of vehicle shall be on the old type of vehicle.