1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The scope of this Court’s adjudication is: (a) in the first instance trial against the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 9,754,600 equivalent to the profits used during the repair period; (b) KRW 6,720,00 equivalent to the profits used during the repair period; and (c) the amount of KRW 133,100 for the repair cost on the date of the second instance trial; and (b) in the first instance trial, the part of the claim was partially accepted, and the remainder was dismissed.

As to this, the Plaintiff appealed to the above (i) KRW 7,579,893 among the exchange value; (ii) KRW 2,857,365 among the profits from use; and (iii) the Defendant appealed to the part against which the Defendant lost. As such, the subject of the judgment by this court is limited to the claim of KRW 7,579,893 out of the exchange value decline; and (iv) the subject of the judgment by this court out of the above profits from use.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, a company that sells and repairs halog vehicles, has been providing services for free lending and borrowing of vehicles to customers when the automobile repair period is long.

B. Around September 2, 2015, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff’s Operation Service Center to repair B vehicles owned by the Defendant. As the repair period has elapsed, the Plaintiff provided a free lease of C vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) to the Defendant from September 25, 2015 during the repair period to the end of the repair period.

C. As above, among the lending and borrowing contracts entered into by the Plaintiff while lending the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”), the contents related to the instant contract are as follows.

“If the repair cost of the instant vehicle exceeds 20% of the vehicle value due to the Defendant’s negligent fault, 50% of the repair cost, which is the vehicle value decline, should be paid to the Plaintiff, since the vehicle value decline.”

D. On October 19, 2015, the Defendant, while driving the instant vehicle on or around October 19, 2015, is under the traffic accident by his negligence.