1. On August 11, 2015, around 17:14, 2015, the drilling accident of A vehicles and B arising from the Gong Young-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 11, 2015, at around 17:14, 2015, C driving a car A car that was subscribed to the Plaintiff’s automobile insurance and driving on the Kaman-ro road in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, the lower part of the Bbts C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-A car was used as the front part of the said car (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On August 12, 2015, the Defendant, as a motor vehicle maintenance enterprise, requested repair of the benz motor vehicle and transferred its damage claim equivalent to the repair cost, and on August 22, 2015, filed a claim with the Plaintiff for KRW 2,292,895 as the amount of damages equivalent to the repair cost (insurance).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is claiming an excessive calculation of the repair cost for the passenger car in benz, and the Defendant asserts that the repair cost is reasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the above evidence and the statements and videos of Gap 2, 3, 6, and 7 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, it may be recognized that the facts that the plaintiff could accept the parts damaged by the benz car due to the accident of this case through the printing and painting work, and the expenses required therefor shall not exceed 300,000 won, which is the amount recognized by the plaintiff, are insufficient to reverse the fact-finding with the entries of Gap 5.

C. Therefore, in relation to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages or insurance money against the Defendant does not exceed KRW 300,000, and the Plaintiff has legal interest in seeking confirmation against the Defendant.

3. Therefore, we decide as per Disposition by citing the Plaintiff’s claim in full.