1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 19,540,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from November 13, 2015 to January 6, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is operating a mutual motor vehicle luminous expertise store in the Daegu Northern-gu C and 1st floor, and the Defendant is the owner of the E UDR8 vehicle.

B. On May 14, 2015, the Defendant visited the place of business of the Plaintiff’s operation to request raping to protect the external appearance of the said east-d vehicle. On the same day, upon the Plaintiff’s recommendation, the Defendant requested the “boo-in raping” work directly spraying the frame for raping on the outer surface of the said east-d vehicle (hereinafter “instant work”).

C. On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the instant work and delivered the said AD vehicle to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of an obligation, such as the assertion and burden of proof in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of an obligation, where the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims the first claim to deny the facts causing an obligation by specifying the cause of the obligation first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of asserting and proving the facts constituting the legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da6772, May 31, 2007). In this case, the plaintiff in this case claims confirmation of the non-existence of an obligation against the defendant regarding the instant work as the principal lawsuit, and the defendant claims damages concerning the above obligation for which the plaintiff seeks confirmation of non-existence

3. Judgment on the defendant's claim for damages

A. In full view of the following: (a) the occurrence and scope of the Plaintiff’s liability for damages first of all, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages: (i) health class Nos. 3 (Additional Number omitted); (ii) the appraiser F’s appraisal result; and (iii) the entire purport of the argument, the Plaintiff’s performance of the instant work, and the Plaintiff’s performance of the instant work, thereby preventing raping in each gap, such as pents, doors, lamps (Hlam, lamps, and compliance lamps).