1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement between a paper truck company and a paper truck company on March 2, 201 with respect to a Class A 14 tons of car truck owned by the said company (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on March 2, 2011 to March 2, 2011. The Defendant is a motor vehicle maintenance business entity that repaired a counterpart vehicle due to the Plaintiff’s accident as follows.

B. B, around 22:05 on August 18, 201, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and driven the front side of the Domoel road, which is located in C at the time of drinking water, due to the mistake that the safety distance was not secured, while driving along one lane among the two-lane roads at the right side from the upstream of the river at the right side, and led the fire-fighting vehicle to receive the center separation zone for the left side of the fire-fighting vehicle and transfer it to the right side.

C. From August 23, 2011 to November 29, 2011, as a fire-fighting vehicle was destroyed due to the foregoing traffic accident, the Defendant repaired the front and the lower body frame of the fire-fighting vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “vehicle part repair”) and the part excluding the front and the congested pumps and the congested roll, etc. among the fire-fighting devices (hereinafter referred to as “fire-fighting device repair” in this part by referring to the repair of this part), and the G operating the “F” repair of the fire-fighting vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “F repair” in this part by referring to its repair”). D.

On the other hand, even though the fire-fighting officer, who is the manager of a fire-fighting vehicle, requested the delivery of a fire-fighting vehicle, upon completion of the repair of the fire-fighting vehicle and the plaintiff guaranteed the payment of the repair cost, the defendant rejected the delivery of the fire-fighting vehicle on the ground that the repair cost has not been paid. As the plaintiff, the defendant, and G are in conflict with each other, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the defendant around December 5, 201.