1. On October 24, 2015, around 17:20 on October 24, 2015, vehicles C are D. at the parking lot adjacent to the in-house gymnasium 1 in the Seongdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of C QM3 vehicle, and the Defendant is the Defendant’s observer vehicle (hereinafter “victim”).

(2) The Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor is an insurance company that entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Plaintiff regarding QM3 vehicles.

B. On October 24, 2015, around 17:20 on October 24, 2015, the Plaintiff contacted the damaged vehicle that was parked while driving C QM3 vehicles at the parking lot adjacent to the Jeondong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sports Center (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

2) The instant traffic accident caused damage to the front part of the damaged vehicle, the left part of the hedge lamps and fences, etc.

C. After entering into a vehicle rental contract with a limited liability company, the Defendant leased the ELF vehicle for 30 days from October 30, 2015 to December 14:00 from October 30, 2015, and the said limited liability company claimed KRW 2,68,000 to the Defendant as rent for the said period. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 2.666 million to the limited liability company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where, for the reason that the victim cannot use his/her motor vehicle for a certain period of time due to damage caused by an accident, he/she claims the expenses for borrowing and lending another motor vehicle of the same class and class for the compensation or insurance money from the perpetrator or insurer, the borrowing and lending of the relevant motor vehicle should be required, as well as the amount of the borrowing and lending expenses thereof may be appropriate;

In addition, if there is a dispute between the parties on the necessity of lending and borrowing and the reasonableness of the amount of lending expenses, the burden of proving the assertion is the victim who borrowed the vehicle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the said legal doctrine is deemed to have been applied.