1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

On June 29, 2015, around 14:30, Busan High-dong, Busan High-dong, Busan High-do.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows, and the court's ruling No. 2-B is as follows:

paragraphs (1) and (2)-C).

In addition to the application of paragraph (2), the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

Part 3 of the 16th page "24,400 won 39,410 won at the left-hand side price" is "399,410 won at the left-hand side price of 399,410 won."

“267,000 won” in Part 1 of Part 8 shall be added to “(daily rates that accrue from leasing high-class vehicles from large rental car companies for one to two days).”

The 8th page “Plaintiff” in the 12th page shall be considered as “Defendant”.

2. A part used in a trial;

(a) Decision 2-B of the first instance court; and

(1) The repair of a motor vehicle destroyed by an illegal act as to the cost of repair shall also be necessary and reasonable.

In addition, if the victim claims the amount of the cost of the maintenance to the perpetrator after having the automobile maintenance businessman maintain the damaged vehicle due to the accident, the amount of the cost of the maintenance work in question, as well as the amount of the cost of the maintenance work in question, and if there is a dispute between the parties as to the necessity of the maintenance work and the reasonableness of the cost of the maintenance, the victim shall be liable to claim and prove that the amount of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5076, Dec. 24, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, the repair of the instant damaged vehicle due to the instant accident was an operation of exchanging the left-hand slurbr and flurgs, and the fact that the Defendant spent a total of KRW 782,210 in repairing the instant damaged vehicle is as seen earlier, and that the Defendant spent KRW 782,210, as mentioned above, written evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 3 (including the serial number).