1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was entrusted with the repair of the vehicle to the defendant, and the defendant, while repairing the vehicle, lost the seals attached to the fashion intentionally or by negligence, so the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages equivalent to the expenses additionally paid by the plaintiff for the repair of the seals.

In addition, the Defendant received repair expenses from the Plaintiff even if it was incomplete to repair the instant vehicle even after checking and repairing the instant vehicle more than twice, such as failing to find out the problem of the stade, etc. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the repair expenses to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment return or damages due to nonperformance.

2. In light of the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant intentionally or negligently damaged the typator while repairing the operation of the instant vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

In addition, in full view of the purport of the argument as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including serial number), and the fact finding about Eul of this Court, the plaintiff appealed to the defendant about the water leakage of noise and safy smoke generated from the failure of the vehicle of this case on or around the end of January 2013, and requested the defendant to repair the vehicle of this case. The defendant found the damage caused by decomposition of the vehicle of this case and replaced the air, and then delivered the vehicle of this case to the plaintiff and received the repair cost of 3.2 million won. The plaintiff operated the vehicle of this case after the repair of the vehicle of this case, while the vehicle of this case was serious noise from the back part of the vehicle of this case, the vehicle of this case stopped without compensation. The defendant operated the vehicle of this case after demolishing the vehicle of this case, and then replaced the vehicle of this case without compensation.