1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 15, 2019 to January 31, 2020, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 1, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a vehicle maintenance contract for D 205 tons of large cargo vehicles owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) between the Defendant and a person engaged in the wholesale and retail business of scrap iron, and the Defendant, who is operating the automobile maintenance business, with the trade name C around June 1, 2018.

B. On June 4, 2018, the Defendant performed an engine replacement work to exchange and repair the engine of the instant vehicle after disassemblying the engine, and then sub-prefabricated the engine, and delivered the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff on June 4, 2018, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,100,000 to the Defendant as the cost for the maintenance of the instant vehicle.

C. On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff, while driving the instant vehicle on the delivery of the instant vehicle, suspended operation and towed the instant vehicle to the Defendant’s maintenance shop, and again requested the Defendant to repair the vehicle.

On June 15, 2018, the Defendant: (a) conducted renovation, such as engine monitoring, projector fuel system, etc.; (b) conducted repair of parts; (c) replacement of electric power lines; and (d) transferred the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff on June 15, 2018; (b) however, on June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff, while driving the instant vehicle on June 18, 2018, suspended operation due to the occurrence of abnormal vehicles in the vicinity of the New Daegu Expressway tunnel; (c)

E. After replacing the engine itself, the Defendant delivered the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff on June 21, 2018, and the Plaintiff currently operates the instant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 4, Eul's 1 to 5 (including branch numbers), Gap's E's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered loss due to the plaintiff's failure or incomplete performance of the duty of maintenance under the vehicle maintenance contract of this case by the defendant.