1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,158,238 and to the plaintiff on October 27, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the new learning vehicle (registration number C; hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and the Defendant is the company engaging in the damage compensation business, and the Defendant is in charge of paying the repair cost as the substitute damage insurance in case the insured vehicle was damaged by the other party as the sea vehicle.

B. On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff was driving along a road near South-gu Dong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, and the Defendant’s insured vehicle entered the said road from the parking lot to the said road, and the instant vehicle was damaged by shocking the front part of the driver’s seat of the instant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff delegated D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) with the duty of evaluating damage caused by the instant accident.

D On July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted to the Plaintiff a statement of damage assessment (hereinafter referred to as “the statement of damage assessment”) calculated by adding the repair cost of the instant vehicle to KRW 1,868,424 (including value-added tax).

D In calculating the repair cost as above, the part-time official fee per hour applied is KRW 28,300, respectively. D.

On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) entrusted the E Company to repair the instant vehicle; and (b) paid KRW 1,868,000 (including value-added tax) at its repair cost on July 13, 2016.

Around that time, the Plaintiff claimed repair expenses to the Defendant. Upon receipt of the documents relating to the claim for insurance money, the Defendant determined the insurance amount to be paid without delay and paid the insurance money within seven days from the fixed date. The Plaintiff did not pay the indemnity insurance money on the ground that the repair cost claimed by the Plaintiff is excessive

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, 8, 23 evidence, Eul 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on this safety defense shall be based on the name of the plaintiff who accepted the instant vehicle in the hinterland of the plaintiff.