1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 15, 2013, the Plaintiff-owned Daoba (hereinafter “the instant Obaba”) caused an accident involving damage to the post-defabaculation, etc.

B. On the day of the accident, the Plaintiff requested repair to the Defendant on the day of the accident, and the Defendant, on December 1, 2013, delivered the Plaintiff with the completion of repair of the instant Obane.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 2 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments)

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion was not operated for 121 days on the wind of 121 days or late repair of the plaintiff's ground of appeal.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 5,356,00 [the amount of KRW 4,356,00 for a holiday fee of KRW 4,356,00 for a holiday fee of KRW 180,000 per day x 121 days x 20%).

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant received KRW 10,50,000 of the repair cost from the Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Dongbu Fire”) which is an insurance company for C-cars. Since then, the Defendant received from the Plaintiff the repair cost only for the front part of the Orbub in this case, and was demanded from the Plaintiff to pay KRW 8 million in cash the difference of the repair cost.

Since the defendant has delayed repair in the process of rejecting the above unfair demand of the plaintiff, there is no reason for the delay in repair to the defendant.

3. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the delay in the repair of the Obaba in this case seems to have been due to the plaintiff's improper demand to the defendant for the fraud of insurance money. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the repair of Obaba in this case was delayed due to the defendant's reasons attributable to the defendant.