1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant does not exist with respect to the accident described in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is operating a hotel A located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant hotel”).

B. On February 17, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D Co., Ltd., setting lease deposit amounting to KRW 23,458,00, monthly rent of KRW 2,016,10 (including value-added tax) and period of KRW 36 months from February 17, 2012 with respect to E-Vehicles owned by the said Company (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

C. F, the Defendant’s husband, was lodging in the instant hotel from October 16, 2014 to October 19, 2014.

F around October 18, 2014, around 22:35, the G left the parking of the instant vehicle to G, an employee acting for the hotel parking of the instant hotel, and G parked the instant vehicle using the mechanical parking equipment of the instant hotel.

F, around 12:00 on October 19, 2014, around 12:00, examined the instant vehicle that H, an employee acting for the hotel parking of the instant case, and claimed that H was damaged in the course of the instant vehicle’s wheel chairs on the back of the driver’s seat of the instant vehicle, which entered the mechanical parking machine of the instant hotel.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”), which is claimed by F, is an accident in which the wheelchairs of the rear wheels of the driver’s seat of the instant vehicle was damaged during the parking process.

On February 17, 2015, the Defendant completed the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant vehicle, and completed the ownership transfer registration with respect to 1/100 of the instant vehicle on March 11, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 1, Eul 1, Eul 1, 2, 4, 8, 14, 15 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties cannot be deemed to have damaged the instant vehicle due to the instant accident, and there is no objective evidence to deem that the Defendant actually repaired the instant vehicle due to the instant accident.

Even if the instant vehicle was involved in the accident, the instant vehicle.