The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the vehicle indicated below at the time of the traffic accident listed below (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and the Defendant is the insurer who concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant sea vehicle that caused the instant accident.

On April 5, 2018, Apr. 11, 2018, the details of the first registered traffic accident at the time of the accident on the date of the initial registration of the vehicle shocked the back of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was parked by the sea-going vehicle on April 5, 2017, and thereby, 100% of the shocked vehicle in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the odometer, the average market price of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the actual repair cost, the repair volume, and the history of the existing accident are as listed below.

The average market value of the odometer 38,577km, 26,80,000 won 11,830,000 won per previous accident history of the repair cost and details of the average of the odometer 38,57km - Major shootings: on the left and right, wheel wheel Sheet gold, set side and right-hand Sheet gold, set side floor panel board board, Lienenna Panel exchange - Outboard: Ex-post exchange, exchange of postd, right-hand frick Sheet 601,080 won per repair cost.

C. On May 4, 2018, the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s vehicle damaged by the instant accident into D and entrusted it with repair. On May 15, 2018, the Plaintiff received notification from D that the Plaintiff completed the repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from D on May 15, 2018, but the Plaintiff confirmed the status of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and requested re-repair to D on May 15, 2018 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not replace the frame of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the repair was insufficient.

On May 23, 2018, D Co., Ltd. notified the Plaintiff that the repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was completed. However, the Plaintiff refused to recover the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the ground that it was not replaced with the frame of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and on June 19, 2018, D Co., Ltd requested the Plaintiff to recover the Plaintiff’s vehicle by June 20, 2018.