1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under the following paragraph (2) shall be revoked.

2.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence 3-1 and evidence 4-1.

The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a company running a non-life insurance business regardless of any change between the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle and the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle are damaged as the substitute insurance money, and the Defendant is a company running a vehicle maintenance business, etc.

B. On December 19, 2014, the vehicle A, Escar 2 (hereinafter “A”) was a vehicle located in the U.S. Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), and the Defendant accepted the peculiar part, etc. of the vehicle A due to an accident that occurred between the Plaintiff and the insured vehicle in the New Eastdong-dong Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, and received the repair cost from B, the representative of B, and the Plaintiff claimed KRW 11,830,00,000, the amount equivalent to the repair cost paid to the Defendant as the insurance amount for the damage caused by the substitute property. The Plaintiff paid KRW 11,830,000 to B around February 2015.

C. On January 4, 2015, the Defendant accepted the special parts of D vehicles due to an accident that occurred between the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle and the insured vehicle in the outer cycle of Seoul, and received the repair cost, and E claimed KRW 17,000,000,000, which is the amount equivalent to the repair cost that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 17,000,000,000 to E around March 2015.

2. Determination:

A. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim is examined, and the Plaintiff’s new Dong-dong, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, on December 19, 2014, to B around February 2015.