1. The part of the first instance judgment against Defendant C and E shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the above defendants is complete.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the claims against Defendant B, the part of the claim against Defendant B (including the paper number), Defendant B’s repair completion on July 12, 2017 by entrusting the Plaintiff with the repair of F Sspo-R vehicle, and its repair cost is KRW 5,301,341 (including the cost of parts), and the Plaintiff completed repair on December 16, 2016 by entrusting the repair of the GM X5 vehicle with the repair cost (including the cost of parts), and the repair cost is KRW 5,198,534 (including the cost of parts).

Unlike this, Defendant B’s assertion that the owner of the vehicle only introduced the Plaintiff to request repair is not acceptable.

In addition, Defendant B’s assertion that each of the above repair costs is excessive is rejected.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from July 13, 2017 to July 17, 2016 to July 10, 2018, respectively, for the remaining KRW 5,198,534, with respect to KRW 10,49,875 and KRW 5,301 among them, from the following day to the day of full payment.

B. The part of the claim against Defendant C and E alleged that the above Defendants were the owner of the above SPR vehicle, and thus, they are jointly and severally obligated with Defendant B to pay KRW 5,301,341 to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the repair cost solely on the ground that the Plaintiff is the owner of the above vehicle.

On the other hand, since there is no assertion or proof as to the legal grounds under the agreement that the above Defendants are liable to pay the repair cost to the Plaintiff, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

As the Plaintiff has repaired the said vehicle under the repair contract between the Defendant B, it cannot be deemed that Defendant C and E have profited without any legal ground and the Plaintiff has suffered loss.

Therefore, it is true.