1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

2...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the repair of the CMW vehicle owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) was entrusted to the Defendant, which was destroyed by a traffic accident that occurred around March 5, 2016.

After completion of repair, the Plaintiff accepted the instant vehicle from the Defendant, but thereafter, various defects, such as the attached list, have occurred on the instant vehicle, which are caused by defects in repair performed by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the repair cost of KRW 6,260,495, the repair cost of KRW 8,270,750, the repair cost of KRW 1,750, the rental cost of KRW 1,750,000, the repair cost of KRW 270,660, the consolation money of KRW 16,51,90, and delay damages therefrom.

B. In full view of the purport of the argument in each of the statements in Gap 5, Gap 7, 9 and Eul 5 through 9 (including a Serial number), the plaintiff was damaged due to the occurrence of a traffic accident while driving the instant vehicle around March 5, 2016, while the value of the instant vehicle at the time is 23,50,000, and if the repair of the instant vehicle due to the said traffic accident is requested to the BaW AS Center, the cost would have been anticipated to have been KRW 8,00,000 from approximately KRW 70,000 to KRW 70,000,000,000 for the purpose of continuing operation of the instant vehicle. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested the repair of the instant vehicle for the purpose of continuing operation of the instant vehicle, and accordingly, the plaintiff paid KRW 28,200,000 at the cost of repairing the vehicle to the defendant around 71, 207, including the amount of the instant repair work at 207.