1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) with KRW 3,512,472.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the scope of damages (as set forth in the judgment of the court of first instance No. 5 at the bottom of the 6th) and Paragraph 4 (hereinafter “the theory of conclusion”) are set forth in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such,

2. The above portion is that the Defendant paid KRW 2,832,190 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, as seen earlier, and the repair business entity adjusted the amount of KRW 20% from the repair cost claimed by the Defendant. See evidence 7. Barring special circumstances, the above amount appears to be an adequate repair cost, barring any special circumstance. The Plaintiff asserts that the amount exceeding KRW 2,204,641, calculated by the AUDEX program it uses cannot be recognized as an adequate repair cost. However, the Plaintiff did not specifically state the repair cost of the Defendant vehicle, and the above estimate program is not particularly reliable. Unless there are grounds to view that the above estimate program is a particularly reliable program, the above recognition cannot be followed solely on the ground that the repair cost paid by the Defendant was calculated differently from the amount on the above estimate program. In the case of the Defendant vehicle, which is a non-business vehicle, the Defendant’s claim for the repair cost of the vehicle for a certain period of time for which the victim was damaged due to an accident, and the Defendant’s claim for the amount of KRW 20.

(b) a loan;