손해배상
Plaintiff
All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne individually by each person.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is that the part of “the cost of repairing pumps of this case” in Article 3(1) of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance other than replacing the part of “the cost of repairing pumps of this case” in Article 3(2) of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance
2. Costs for repairing the pumps of this case
A. A. A summary of the party’s assertion 1) The repair cost paid by the Plaintiff to F is KRW 74,508,830 and KRW 5,362,61,440 paid to G. 2) The actual repair cost paid by the Plaintiff to G is KRW 79,871,440,00, in total, KRW 213,00, and KRW 5,362,610, in total, and KRW 5,575,610, in total, and KRW 5,575,610, in total, may be recognized as damages.
B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff paid the repair cost of KRW 5,362,610 ( KRW 4,875,100, value-added tax of KRW 487,510) to G is not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the items in Gap evidence 7-3, Eul evidence 9-1, 9-5. 2) The repair cost of this case paid to F is examined. According to the evidence No. 6, the Plaintiff was found to have issued the statement of KRW 74,508,830 regarding the PPF of this case only 74,50 regarding the repair cost of this case. However, the Plaintiff was summoned from the first instance court’s reply to the F of the first instance court for the fact that the evidence was not submitted to the witness on August 12, 2009, and the Plaintiff was not summoned from the court of first instance until the date of pleading 201, 2017.
The main part, such as a gate, used for repairing the pumps of this case, is cut off.