1. Regarding the accidents listed in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff’s insurance money payment obligation against the Defendants is KRW 3,806,000, respectively.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. In full view of the facts of recognition as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the CCTV image verification result of this court, witness Eul's testimony and arguments, the following facts were revealed: (i) around 17:20 on August 31, 2014; (ii) on the part adjacent to the front left side of the plaintiff's front-hand part of the car; (iii) on the part of the repair of the plaintiff's automobile that entered into the contract with the defendant for the replacement of the vehicle's front-hand part of the repair cost (hereinafter "the accident of this case"); and (iv) on the part of the repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle that entered into the contract with the defendant's permanent residence (hereinafter "the plaintiff's vehicle"); and (iv) on the part of the repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle of this case, the defendants notified the plaintiff's vehicle of the repair cost of this case No. 1, 2014.

B. According to the facts of recognition of the occurrence and scope of liability, the Plaintiff is the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate for each of 3,806,00 won (=total repair cost of KRW 7,612,00) incurred by the Defendants, who are joint operators of the instant charging station due to the instant accident (=2).

C. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment related to the occurrence of liability (1) The key point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff’s front driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while having known that the entry direction was erroneously set, had contacted with the Plaintiff’s front driver in the company of the instant automatic set machines.

Therefore, the period of the instant car is due to the instant accident.