수리비 청구
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. In the first instance trial on the scope of this Court’s trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim for payment of repair costs under a contract with the Defendant as the principal lawsuit, and the Defendant filed a claim for damages as the counterclaim. The court of first instance accepted all the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit and dismissed all the Defendant’s counterclaims.
The judgment of the court of first instance was lodged only by the defendant against the main claim, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the main claim.
2. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 3, 2010, the Defendant purchased the Movib B vehicle from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).
B. On July 27, 2015, the Defendant requested the Busan Service Center operated by the Plaintiff to repair the vehicle due to the breakdown, such as a change of transmission device, etc. in the instant vehicle.
C. On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the repair of the instant vehicle and delivered the vehicle to the Defendant.
The expense of KRW 4,944,010 was required for the inspection and maintenance of the instant vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
3. After purchasing the instant vehicle, the Defendant discovered the water leakage problem on May 20, 2013, and requested the Plaintiff to improve the instant vehicle twice on July 2013.
According to the mileage at the time, the part of the breakdown was subject to free repair, but the defendant was unfairly delayed repair, so there is no obligation to pay repair cost to the defendant.
4. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the service cost of KRW 4,944,010 for the maintenance and inspection of the instant vehicle, and damages for delay.
B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff delayed the maintenance of defects within the warranty period of free quality, but the following facts or circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s statement of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken into account the overall purport of the pleadings, are the Plaintiff’s statement on July 10, 20