1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was engaged in the automobile maintenance business under the trade name “D” in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu, and the Defendant is a company running the insurance business, etc.

B. The Plaintiff, who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant or the owner of a vehicle destroyed by the negligence of the insured, has maintained the vehicle at the request of repair, and has claimed insurance money equivalent to the repair cost to the Defendant.

C. After accepting each vehicle listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “each of the instant vehicles”), the Plaintiff claimed insurance money equivalent to the repair cost to the Defendant, who is the insurance company.

The repair cost is based on the damage evaluation statement (hereinafter referred to as "each damage evaluation statement of this case") prepared by E Co., Ltd. (Attached Nos. 1 and 2) and F Co., Ltd. F (Attached Nos. 3 through 7).

The defendant paid insurance money by calculating the repair cost per hour and working hours calculated based on data published by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and the AOS program for the estimation of automobile repair costs, etc., and did not pay KRW 2,262,505 out of the amount claimed by the plaintiff.

Specific details shall be as shown in the attached Table.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 8 through 14, 36 evidence, Eul evidence 4 (if any, including them; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff claimed repair costs on the basis of the part of the time per which the lawful calculation was made according to the respective damage adjusting statement of this case (the Plaintiff’s assertion 30,50 won per hour, No. 30,50 won, No. 30,450 won, No. 30,450 won, No. 55,670, and No. 45,670, respectively, No. 55, and the Defendant did not request correction thereof, and only paid some insurance proceeds on the basis of the part of the time per which the Defendant arbitrarily calculated.

The defendant asserts the appropriateness of working hours through AOS program.