1. A traffic accident that occurred between B and C in the vicinity of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on July 20, 2014, around 20:00.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 20:00 on July 20, 2014, D, while driving a B vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicle”) in the vicinity of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, he shocked the front panion and fences of the Clusian vehicle owned by the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

On July 25, 2014, Nonparty E was entrusted with the assessment by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant asserted that the said E was damaged as well as pentle and wheel chairs, and that it was 2,500,000 won for the repair cost. However, on September 24, 2014, Nonparty E submitted to the Plaintiff a report on the assessment of damages of KRW 3,00,000,000 for the reason that “it was not abnormal as a result of the verification of land substitution, such as rink damage and unresh oil.”

C. On October 18, 2014, Nonparty F, who was requested to repair a vehicle from the Defendant, issued a written estimate of KRW 9,030,60,00 (value-added tax separate) for the repair of the vehicle, etc., to the Plaintiff. However, the said written estimate states that “The vehicle operation restriction device is anticipated to be damaged due to shock caused by the studs, wheelchairss, etc. in the case of the vehicle operation, and the damage of the string eventually led to the damage of the string.”

On January 31, 2005, the defendant paid KRW 3,000,000 to F.

E. Meanwhile, the defendant continued to manage the above vehicle before the accident of this case, as well as he participated in the vehicle racing in 2013 by remodelling the defendant vehicle and operating it with the racing vehicle.

F. The Plaintiff is an insurer who concluded an insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, entry of Eul evidence 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings】

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties, even though the Defendant, after the first consultation on the repair cost, operated a vehicle and claimed the repair cost in addition to the repair cost. However, the damage to the said section is the instant accident.