beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.12.22 2016나7002

손해배상(기)

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendants are about KRW 15,152,276 to each plaintiff and the defendants.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the operator of the “D gas station” located in Ssung City (hereinafter “instant gas station”). Defendant B is the driver of the F Costex vehicle owned by E (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and Defendant Mmerz Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with E with respect to the instant vehicle.

B. At around 14:00 on January 24, 2015, Defendant B: (a) loaded the instant vehicle using a bable type automatic washing machine located in the instant gas station (hereinafter “instant washing machine”).

C. The Plaintiff’s employee led the instant vehicle to stop in front of the instant three vehicles, and the Defendant B was in a neutral state.

The Plaintiff’s employee operated the instant washing machine, and the Plaintiff’s employees suspended the instant washing machine due to the sound of the string, and the instant washing machine was destroyed (hereinafter “instant accident”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 3 (including virtual number) and the purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B had kept in a neutral state of the change of the engine of the instant vehicle, caused the instant accident due to the negligence of changing the engine of the instant vehicle into the main engine during the third vehicle. The Plaintiff spent repair costs of KRW 15,041,00 in order to repair the instant vehicle. As the instant accident did not operate the vehicle, the amount of damages equivalent to KRW 3,89,346 was incurred, so the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of damages incurred by the instant accident and the damages incurred therefrom.

B. Defendant B’s assertion did not hear the explanation from the Plaintiff’s employees prior to the commencement of the set-off of the set-off of the set-off of the set-off period to convert the speed of the change into the parking state. The instant accident