1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in automobile maintenance business in Daegu-gu, and the Defendant is a company engaged in automobile rental business (e.g., car rental business) in Daegu-gu.

B. On July 11, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with A on the condition that “A leases B vehicles from July 11, 2012 to March 11, 2013 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).”

C. On December 21, 2012, A driven the instant vehicle on December 21, 2012, the instant vehicle and the instant vehicle driven by C in the vicinity of the Daegu-gu Dong-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Highway.

Accordingly, on December 11, 2012, the Defendant’s employee D entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff with the terms “requesting the Plaintiff to repair the instant vehicle” (hereinafter “instant repair contract”).

E. On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the repair of the instant vehicle and delivered it to D.

F. The Plaintiff claimed KRW 11.9 million at the repair cost of the instant vehicle, and the Korea Commercial Damage Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer of C, paid KRW 4.1.5 million to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the repair cost of KRW 7,50,000 under the instant repair contract (i.e., KRW 1,19 million - KRW 4,150,00) and damages for delay at each rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from March 11, 2013, the delivery date of the instant vehicle, until February 18, 2016, which is the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, and from the following day to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff calculated excessive repair costs of the instant vehicle, but the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, etc. of the instant vehicle, which are recognized as the repair volume and the degree of repair, are examined.