1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance on the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance partially admitted the plaintiffs' claims for a counterclaim while dismissing the defendant's claims for a counterclaim. The defendant appealed against this claim and filed an appeal against the main claim and the counterclaim, but at the trial of the court, withdrawn an appeal against the counterclaim. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the defendant among

2. The reasons why the citing party members of the judgment of the court of first instance explain this case are as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, for the reason that the citing party members of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification of the third-party claim

3. The modified part.

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of damages, the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 8 (including paper numbers), the defendant, around October 10, 2012, agreed to accept the plaintiff B by October 31, 2012 when presenting a estimate stating repair cost of KRW 21,709,60,000. The above agreement used used used used parts for repair of the present vehicle in spite of the use of the government's net goods at the time of repair of the present vehicle in the above agreement, which was the object of the repair contract, the repair of the present vehicle was not repaired, and the defendant can be found to have delivered the present vehicle to the plaintiff B on November 10, 2012.

The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff agreed to use used parts while reducing the original repair cost with the Plaintiff B, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the agreement. Rather, according to the purport of the written statement and the entire pleadings as set forth in subparagraph 6-2, the Defendant issued a written estimate to the Plaintiff B, stating the repair cost of KRW 21,709,60 (including value-added tax) due to the partial reduction of the previous repair cost, and the said written estimate stipulates that all parts, including the “blur”, shall be installed as “new items (including the guarantee part for post-management in the case of a car manufacturer) supplied by a car manufacturer and parts company.”