1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) caused a traffic accident involving the Plaintiff’s Oral Ba (hereinafter “instant Oral Ba”); (b) around 5 p.m. while operating the Plaintiff’s Oral Bana (hereinafter “the instant Oral Ba”), an employee of Oral Baca operated by the Plaintiff, caused a traffic accident involving the Plaintiff’s Oral Baca (hereinafter “the instant Oral Ba”).

B. After that, the Plaintiff requested E, who operates D, to repair the latter part of the Orala of this case, the latter part of the Orala, the latter part of the pentas, the latter part of the Duala (Stling item), the multilateral cover, the third part of the string item, and the latter part of the repair, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 350,000 to E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole testimony and pleading of the witness E at the trial

2. According to the above fact of recognition as to the existence of liability for damages, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damages equivalent to the repair cost incurred by the plaintiff due to the above traffic accident caused by the plaintiff's mistake that caused the plaintiff's breach of the duty of pre-determination during the course of the operation

However, the above evidence and the following points recognized by the purport of the entire argument are as follows: ① On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff requested E, immediately after the Defendant's traffic accident, to repair the Oralvers in this case, and the next day.

9. 12. The witness E testified that he used for delivery services upon completion of the repair. However, the witness E testified in this Court that the time of photographing before the repair was 9:40 minutes before the repair was made on September 12, 2014, which does not coincide with the Plaintiff’s statement concerning the repair process, and ② the witness E testified that normal operation is impossible at the time when the repair was requested by the Plaintiff, but the Defendant voluntarily operated the instant OE after causing a traffic accident.