1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. Upon the plaintiff's preliminary claim added by this court, the defendant.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court concerning the plaintiff's primary claim is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the conjunctive claim against the defendant A added by the plaintiff in this court. Thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

If it is not recognized that the plaintiff's assertion on the conjunctive claim against the defendant A and the defendant A entered into a repair contract, the defendant A is obliged to pay the above amount of money in return for the benefit of 27,823,400 won without any legal ground. Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the defendant A is obligated to return the money in return for unjust enrichment.

Judgment

According to the facts acknowledged above, Defendant A, who is responsible for the storage and management of the said car by repairing the said car, gains the benefit of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff suffered the loss therefrom.

As seen earlier, it cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a repair contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, Defendant A’s interests and the Plaintiff’s damages occur without any legal ground.

Therefore, Defendant A should return the amount of damages equivalent to the repair cost incurred by the Plaintiff within the scope of Defendant A’s benefit.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 4, the plaintiff claimed KRW 11,653,235, part cost of the above car at the repair cost after the completion of the repair of the above car, and the defendant East Fire, after going through the examination of repair cost of the repair cost, can be recognized that the plaintiff respondeded to KRW 8,910,00, and part cost of KRW 18,913,400.

On the other hand, if the purport of the entire argument is added to the statements in Eul evidence 2 and 3, there were problems, such as the suspension of engine during the operation of automobiles even after the repair of the automobiles in this case, or the erroneous operation of a meter, etc., and the plaintiff paid KRW 115,50 to the Incheon Lao Co., Ltd.