1. Regarding the accident described in the attached list, damages against the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are assessed against him.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. B, around 16:10 on May 2, 2015, driving a freight C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on the front of a plant located in 1409, in front of the branch office of a company located in the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) at the Mayang-si port, and shocked the parts of the Defendant’s complaint work vehicle owned by the Defendant, which was standing on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the non-permanent transportation limited partnership company and the plaintiff vehicle that are the owner of the plaintiff vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul No. 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment as to it

A. 1) In the instant accident, the Defendant suffered damages from the Defendant’s repair cost of KRW 11,35,940 for the Defendant’s vehicle and KRW 11,112,580 for the period of 37 days. As such, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Defendant a total sum of KRW 22,448,520 for the damages caused by the instant accident, and the damages incurred therefrom. 2) The Plaintiff (the cause of the principal claim) cannot be deemed to have caused damage to the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident, and thus, the Plaintiff is not liable to pay the Defendant the damages.

B. In light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts of recognition, the evidence mentioned above, and the respective statements and images mentioned in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, 7 through 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5 through 8 (including each number), and the overall purport of the testimony and oral argument of witnesses E, F, G, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant's assertion was damaged on the defendant's vehicle due to the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was a causal relationship between the instant accident and the damage of the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the defendant's above premise that the defendant's vehicle was damaged due to the instant