1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 23,633,013 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from September 24, 2016 to May 30, 2018.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company running non-life insurance business, and owned D vehicles owned by E between E and E (hereinafter referred to as “dial vehicles”).

(2) On September 24, 2016, around 00:20 on September 24, 2016, a traffic accident occurred in which the beauty room building was damaged, and the equipment in beauty room was damaged.

(hereinafter referred to as "the traffic accident of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 21 (including paper numbers), each video and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff is liable to compensate the defendant for the damages incurred by the defendant due to the instant traffic accident pursuant to Article 724 of the Commercial Act as the insurer of the sea-going vehicle.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. In light of the purport of the entire pleadings on each statement of the repair cost and the collection cost of the beauty art room and the total amount of losses (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the defendant can be found to have spent KRW 10,135,840,340 in total with the repair cost and re-purchase cost of the beauty art room, and KRW 10,135,840 in total with the repair cost and re-purchase cost of the damaged house, etc.

(On the other hand, the defendant asserts that there was a loss of KRW 70,00 and CCTV purchasing cost of KRW 970,00,000 as cleaning cost, but the receipt submitted based on cleaning cost is not written by the supplier, which includes cleaning cost. The CCTV purchasing cost also overlaps with the contents of CCTV business trip repair cost and there is no objective financial data supporting the expenditure. Therefore, the defendant's argument about the above two items is rejected. However, according to the video of the evidence No. 21, according to the video of the evidence No. 21, it seems that the facilities of the beauty room operated by the defendant were worn out to a certain extent.