1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. In determining the existence of liability for damages, the fact that Defendant B driven the Plaintiff’s Baba car, Defendant C-owned on May 28, 2014, and caused the Plaintiff’s air-conditioner (hereinafter “instant air-conditioner”) to be used in the restaurant in the name of E E located in the sport in which the Plaintiff operated while the Plaintiff was negligent in operating Hands due to the negligence on the part of Defendant C’s operation, is not disputed between the parties.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident.

2. Determination on the extent of damages

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the costs of damage and replacement of air conditioners should be compensated for KRW 4,900,000 for the costs of purchasing air conditioners and indoor air conditioners and KRW 1,507,00 for the costs of installing air conditioners, which were damaged by the instant accident.

According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the plaintiff purchased air conditioners and indoors equivalent to KRW 4,90,00 due to damage to air conditioners after the accident of this case, and paid KRW 1,507,00 with the cost of replacing air conditioners and indoor air conditioners. Meanwhile, the amount of damages at the time of damage caused by a tort can be repaired if it is possible to do so. If it is impossible to repair it, the reduced value of the exchange is normal amount of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da5289, Nov. 13, 2001), Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including serial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and each statement and arguments of the following items, and the plaintiff cannot be concluded to be fully able to purchase the air condition of this case due to the damage to air conditioners: