1. Of the part on the counterclaim of the judgment of the first instance, 143,612 won and the part on the counterclaim against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Determination on the main claim

A. From June 2010 to July 2012, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff accepted a total of 87 motor vehicle repair request from the Defendant’s automobile insurance purchaser as shown in the attached Table 1, and the Defendant claimed the amount of “repair fee for the Plaintiff’s Claim” as indicated in the attached Table 1. However, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not pay a total of 78,979,660 won as indicated in the “ Claim Amount for the Plaintiff’s Claim” listed in the attached Table 1. As indicated in the attached Table 1., the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for payment of the unpaid amount and damages for delay.

B. The facts that there is no dispute over the judgment, Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul's evidence Nos. 16 and 18 added to the whole purport of the pleadings.

5. Although the automobile repair equivalent to KRW 4,600 (excluding value added tax), 11. The fact that the Defendant did not recognize it at the time of the initial damage evaluation and did not pay the expenses in relation to the automobile, even though it was repaired with respect to the automobile equivalent to KRW 14,720 (excluding value added tax).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 21,252 won (=(4,600 won) 】 14,720 won 】 (0.1) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 20, 2012 to September 4, 2014, which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the scope of the defendant's obligation to pay to the defendant for repair expenses that the plaintiff raised an objection to the result of the defendant's damage adjustment and filed by the plaintiff for repair expenses unpaid to the defendant.

2. Furthermore, the above-mentioned repair cost.