1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 35,795,90 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 14, 2017 to October 19, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased C5 tons truck (factory 2010; hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and entered into a land entry agreement with a limited company D, and was engaged in cargo transport business under the trade name of E following the completion of the transfer of ownership under the name of the foregoing company on November 11, 2016. The Defendant is a person who operates a vehicle maintenance plant under the trade name of G from Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government.

B. On February 9, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair and maintain the engine, etc. of the instant vehicle, and the Defendant, after repairing and maintaining the engine, etc. of the instant vehicle, delivered it to the Plaintiff on February 13, 2017, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 8.7 million to the Defendant for the maintenance cost.

C. After receiving the instant vehicle from the Defendant, the Plaintiff, from five freezing warehouse companies located in Gangseo-gu Busan on the same day, loaded the instant vehicle with freezing fishery products on the instant vehicle and started transporting the instant vehicle in Bupyeong-si.

Around 23:00 on February 13, 2017, when the Plaintiff operated the instant vehicle and went into the vicinity of the ICIC on Daegu-Usan Highway, etc., emergency warning, etc. was issued on the instant vehicle. The Plaintiff immediately stopped the instant vehicle on the side and contacted the Defendant.

E. On February 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) arrived at the site around 00:00; and (b) repaired the instant vehicle on the side of the expressway, such as dealing with adjoining works.

F. After the Defendant’s completion of the instant vehicle repair, the Plaintiff’s fire occurred on the front side of the instant vehicle located along the instant vehicle engine, and the Plaintiff re-stoped on the side of the expressway, and reported to the 119 fire brigade because the Plaintiff attempted to extinguish fire on the road, but failed to extinguish it, and the fire brigade was extinguishing the fire, but most of the instant vehicle was destroyed by the front part of the instant vehicle, and the freezing fishery products loaded on the instant vehicle were entirely worth the value of frozen fishery products because they were destroyed by fire.