1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a small-sized motor vehicle maintenance business establishment (hereinafter “instant maintenance business establishment”) under the trade name of “Cmotor vehicle industrial operator” in Seo-gu, Gwangju.

B. On November 18, 2016, D, an employee of the said automobile maintenance business, was requested by E, who is a used vehicle dealer, to check the performance of F Salary Three Trucks (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). On the said vehicle, D, as an employee of the said automobile maintenance business, prepared a “motor vehicle performance inspection record” for the said vehicle (hereinafter “instant inspection record”).

In the inspection record of this case, the phrase “13. Accident (excluding simple repair) with 13. Accidents (except for simple repair)” is written as / [[[]]]], and among “Exchange, corrosion, sheet and receipt book of major structural parts of 20.”, there is no particular entry in / [[] 10] members of the inspection record.”

C. On November 18, 2016, E sold the instant vehicle to G, and issued the instant inspection record to G, and G confirmed that the instant vehicle is an accident vehicle through another maintenance business entity, and on December 20, 2016, E filed a civil petition with the Plaintiff and E against H with respect to the instant vehicle.

On December 26, 2016, the Defendant requested the Gwangju District Police Agency to investigate the above civil petition, and the Gwangju District Court issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for each fine of KRW 5 million to E on November 8, 2017 (the summary of the "the instant vehicle was destroyed to the right-hand side and the engine was damaged to the extent that the engine was exchanged due to the accident, and for the exchange, it was destroyed to the extent that the C member, which was the main structural part of the engine, requested to exchange the engine, was also damaged to the extent that it should exchange the engine. However, D knew that D was exchanged, as such, entered in the inspection register of this case, and issued E with the above record, and issued it to G, and E had the summary order of "the aforementioned inspection record".

E and D are dissatisfied with this.