채무부존재확인
1. On October 20, 2015, around 19:35, 2015, D's franchises in front C in front of the city of Speaker B, and E's molds.
1. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “instant accident”) is the insurer of the vehicle since D's franchise concerning the accident described in the order (hereinafter “instant accident”). The degree of damage of the Egypted vehicle caused by the said accident (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) is relatively insignificant and thus would be required for more than three days for repair. If the Plaintiff’s liability is limited to 80% of the Plaintiff’s liability in consideration of the negligence that the Defendant vehicle was double parking on the road at the time of the instant accident, then the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant due to the instant accident would eventually be 814,320 won [52,00 won per day lending fee 522,65% x 35% x 80% x 80% of the Plaintiff’s liability ratio]. The Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant due to the instant accident shall be confirmed by the instant lawsuit that there is no damages claim against the Defendant exceeding the above amount.
In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the paper numbers) and the contents of the instant accident that can be recognized in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, the extent and type of the damage of the defendant vehicle, the type and the market value (the defendant vehicle is traded at the level of KRW 70 million as the GT model in the year 2006, which is the GT model), etc., the damage amount of KRW 814,320 calculated by the plaintiff is deemed to be reasonable as the rent damages for the defendant vehicle, and as long as the defendant disputes over the amount of the above damage amount as seen below, the profit of confirmation is also recognized.
2. The defendant's assertion argues that, after the accident in this case, the defendant used the vehicle at sight for 30 days after the accident in this case, he claimed the plaintiff to pay the amount of damages of the 2,688,000 won [1.6 million won per day rental fee x 70% (30% per day rental fee x 30%) x 30 days x 80% in relation to the plaintiff x 80% in order to maintain the dignity during the repair period of the defendant's vehicle.
The need for sprinking, borrowing and lending is the damaged vehicle.