1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant concluded a transport engineer agreement with the Plaintiff on the Cump truck owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and accordingly, operated the Plaintiff’s vehicle from November 1, 2017.

B. At around 10:20 on November 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and carried the front right part of the D Poter Cargo (hereinafter “victim”), which was directly carried on the front side of the Plaintiff’s left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, when it was due to the negligence of entering the intersection beyond the stop line on the red signal and went directly to the front side of the Plaintiff’s left side while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in a gold-ro eco-friendly 2515, a gold-distance 2515, an agricultural and industrial complex conservation area.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff spent KRW 13,739,165 (the main part of the repair cost, KRW 11,682,165, and KRW 2,057,00) to repair the Plaintiff’s vehicle destroyed by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the occurrence and scope of the liability for damages, the Defendant caused the instant accident by negligence in violation of the signal, and the Plaintiff incurred damages to the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost due to the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 13,739,165 of the repair cost incurred by the Plaintiff.

B. (1) The plaintiff's assertion was estimated at the repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle, but the plaintiff accepted only important parts due to excessive repair cost, and sold the plaintiff's vehicle to the company that sold it again in the company that sold it. The plaintiff asserts that the actual repair cost reaches the amount of the above estimate.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff suffered from the accident of this case.