1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) collects the vehicles listed in the attached Form E from Daejeon-gu, Seo-gu.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 20, 2014, when the instant automobile was destroyed due to the occurrence of a traffic accident on January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff’s deception B operated an automobile indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant automobile”), and upon recommendation of Samsung Fire, a traffic accident offender, requested the Defendants who operated the instant automobile repair center around February 20, 2014, to repair the instant automobile.

B. Defect that the Defendants completed repair of the instant motor vehicle, B, around March 30, 2014, brought the instant motor vehicle out of the vehicle maintenance shop operated by the Defendants.

C. On the ground that the Plaintiff and B did not properly repair of the instant automobile to Samsung Fire, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants would not pay insurance money (automobile repair cost), and that the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant automobile, paid damages, including vehicle repair cost, to the Plaintiff. On April 14, 2014, Samsung Fire paid KRW 22,704,000, including vehicle repair cost of KRW 18,000,000, to the Plaintiff.

When the Defendants were unable to receive the repair cost of the instant automobile, they filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for the repair cost by this court. On January 21, 2015, this court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay to the Plaintiff (the Defendants of this case) 19,45,031 won per annum from March 20, 2014 to January 6, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant judgment of execution”). (e)

On January 13, 2015, traffic accidents involving the instant automobile occurred, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,950,000 as insurance money by the insurance company.

F. On March 25, 2015, B asserted that the repair of the instant motor vehicle was not proper, and Defendant D arbitrarily leased without the consent of the Defendants.