1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 11,620,190 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related thereto from April 5, 2016 to September 21, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company that operates automobile repair business.

B. On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (the first registration number was changed after the Plaintiff purchased the motor vehicle; hereinafter the instant motor vehicle) and completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant motor vehicle.

C. The Defendant received the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff around April 2014 and thereafter possessed the instant vehicle at the Defendant’s workplace from around that time.

Around 03:00 on October 5, 2014, the Defendant’s employees B faced with the front part of the instant vehicle while driving the instant vehicle on the road near the Seoyangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant accident”).

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1 through 7, and the court’s fact-finding results on Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.’s Head of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Property Adjustment Center, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant automobile to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant automobile, unless there are special circumstances.

Luxembourg The Defendant asserted that the instant automobile has a lien, and in full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff requested repair to the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff had an equal heat to the engine of the instant automobile; and (b) the repair cost to be paid by the Defendant was recognized as 11,620,190, respectively; and (c) the repair cost to be paid by the Plaintiff on the repair portion is recognized as 11,620,190, based on the overall purport of the argument as to the description of the evidence Nos. 2, 3-1, 3-1, and 3-1, and the fact inquiry as to the Samsung