1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants ordering payment in excess of the following amounts shall be revoked.

1. Upon compiling the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in Evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the vehicle of this case, was liable to compensate for damages, on August 23, 2013. ② Defendant B, an employee of the Prosecutor’s Office, was faced with the wall of this case to put the vehicle of this case into a lifts for the repair of the vehicle of this case at the time. ③ On January 15, 2013, Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “Defendant Co.”), Defendant B, an employee of the Prosecutor’s Office, was liable to compensate for damages incurred to the vehicle of this case as the maximum damages incurred to the vehicle of this case due to the Plaintiff’s negligence during the term of the contract between Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) and the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”).

Defendant Company, as an insurer, is jointly and severally liable to compensate for the loss suffered by the Plaintiff with Defendant B.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant B suffered damage to the frame of a vehicle in the process of finding a chassis number, thereby seeking the payment of KRW 500,000 of the repair cost, by asserting that he was flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flick

2. Scope of damages.

(a) The repair cost for back-of-life vehicles is generally composed of the cost of official duties and parts required for the breaking of parts and painting, and the official duties among them are calculated by multiplying the maintenance cost per hour by the working hours;

In addition, the whole purport of the pleading is reviewed in the statement No. 4-1, 2, and 3 of the evidence No. 4.