[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Gyeong-soo, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo, Kim Jong-ri, Lee Jong-young

Law Firm Ili, Attorney Il-ri, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Gyeong-soo, Park Byung-chul, Kim Jong-ju

2. KimB

2. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to lend and rent Defendant KimA with respect to a traffic accident listed in the separate sheet does not exist in excess of KRW 270,00.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant KimA are dismissed.

4. The costs of the lawsuit incurred between the Plaintiff and Defendant KimB shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 1/20 of the costs of the lawsuit incurred between the Plaintiff and Defendant KimB shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant KimA.

check that the institution does not have any duty.

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as follows: (i) there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant KimB, or is clear of the record between the said parties, or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, and Eul evidence 7; and (ii) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant KimB pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act, it shall be deemed that the said Defendant led to confession.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract that covers the injury by an automobile with an injury by an automobile with an injury by an automobile with an injury by an automobile with an injury by an automobile with an injury by an automobile with an injury by an automobile with an injury by an automobile with an injury by an automobile with an injury by an automobile with an injury by an automobile.

B. DD, around July 16, 2014: (a) around 28, 2014, as indicated in the separate sheet, caused a traffic accident involving the Defendant KimB-owned wing 600 Obba (hereinafter referred to as “damaged vehicle”) while she was going to cut off the wing-III vehicle from the Yongsan-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-dong at the parking site (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

C. Defendant KimB demanded a considerable period of time to repair the damaged vehicle.

7. On July 16, 2016: (a) entered into a lease agreement with Defendant KimA, who is engaged in the business of leasing Orala in the name of “○○ Back” (hereinafter referred to as “rental vehicle”) on the terms of the contract with the Defendant KimA on July 16, 2014; (b) the terms of the contract with the Defendant KimA, who is engaged in the business of leasing Orala SDRV - 850 Orala (hereinafter referred to as “rental vehicle”); (c) 00 to 30 July 30, 2014:0; and (d) the daily rental fee of KRW 350,000 (excluding value-added tax).

D. On July 30, 2014, Defendant KimA filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 5,390,000 (including value-added tax) to the leased vehicle for 14 days. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants on August 14, 2014.

E. Meanwhile, on May 2016, Defendant KimB transferred all of the damage claims to the Plaintiff of Defendant KimB due to the instant accident to Defendant KimB and delegated the power to notify the assignment of the claims, and the notification reached the Plaintiff’s legal representative on May 24, 2016.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The payment criteria of rent and lease fees under the comprehensive automobile insurance contract shall be defined as "where it is necessary to use other automobiles instead of other automobiles for the period during which a non-business motor vehicle is damaged or damaged, and even if it is necessary to borrow and lease, the rent should be limited to a considerable extent.

However, Defendant KimB borrowed from Defendant KimB for 14 days or more than the damaged vehicle on the ground of the instant accident, but did not assert and prove the necessity and reasonableness of the lending.

Even if the Plaintiff’s debt owed to Defendant KimB due to the instant accident, the amount does not exceed KRW 216,00 ( = 54,000 per day lending fee of KRW 54,000). Nevertheless, the Defendants claim KRW 5,390,00 in excess of the lending fee of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, due to the accident of this case, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the lending fee to the Defendants, and the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of non-existence in order to settle the dispute over the lending fee due to the accident of this case between the Defendants.

3. Whether the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant KimB is legitimate

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the plaintiff's action against the defendant KimB.

The Defendant of a lawsuit seeking confirmation is a person who is likely to cause apprehensions about the legal status of the Plaintiff by dispute over the Plaintiff’s rights or legal relations, and, in other words, a person who asserts conflicting interests, which conflict with the legal interests of the Plaintiff, and has the benefit of confirmation against such Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013, etc.).

In light of the above facts, Defendant KimB transferred to Defendant KimB the entire damage claim against the Plaintiff due to the instant accident to Defendant KimB, as well as the circumstances where the Plaintiff did not dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion in this case, it is difficult to view that Defendant KimB, in accordance with the above legal principles, is a person who asserts a conflict of interest with the legal interests of the Plaintiff and the legal interests of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against defendant KimB is unlawful because there is no benefit to seek confirmation.

4. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant KimA

A. Summary of Defendant KimA’s assertion

The lending and borrowing of Otoba is low in demand and supply, and the lending fee is formed in a non-surb, and the damaged vehicle is a product imported in Japan and the damaged part is a very time to import and repair it.

The daily rent for the damaged vehicle is equivalent to 220,00 won (excluding value-added tax) or the amount of the damaged vehicle at the time and the amount of the damaged vehicle at the time, and the defendant KimB borrowed the amount of the lease equivalent to 350,000 won for each day of the lending from the defendant KimA and borrowed the amount of the lease equivalent to 350,000 won (value-added tax separate) from the defendant KimB for 14 days only to avoid the plaintiff.

On the other hand, 134 days were required for the actual repair of damaged vehicles.

Therefore, the lending fee claimed by Defendant KimA to the Plaintiff is an appropriate amount.

B. Determination

(1) The occurrence of liability for damages

According to the above facts, the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's mistake as the driver of the insured vehicle, and accordingly, the victim KimB needed to use other vehicles during the repair period. Accordingly, since the damage equivalent to the rent of this case was actually occurred due to the lease of another OE from the defendant KimB, the plaintiff, the insurer of this case, is obligated to pay the amount of damages equivalent to the rent of this case incurred by the defendant KimB from the defendant KimB to the defendant KimB. (2) The scope of the liability for damages (A) health expenses, the victim's damage caused damage to the defendant KimB, and the expenses of borrowing and lending other vehicles of the same class and class are claimed as damages or insurance money to the victim or the insurer, and if there is a dispute over the rent of this case between the defendant KimB and the defendant KimB, the plaintiff, the insurer of this case shall be obligated to pay the damages equivalent to the rent of this case to the defendant KimB from the defendant KimB, and the amount of the rent can be claimed as 2016.

15. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399). (1) In light of such legal principles, each statement in the evidence No. 1, No. 2, No. 2, and No. 3 with respect to the instant case is insufficient to recognize that the amount of damage equivalent to the loan fee the Defendant KimB suffered due to the instant accident reaches an aggregate of KRW 5,390,000 (=385,000 x 14 days) for 14 days on the basis of KRW 385,000 per day, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

2) Rather, considering the following circumstances that are comprehensively considered as a result of the above basic facts, Gap evidence No. 3’s appraisal and appraisal of the lending period of the appraiser Sung Changwon and the result of the inquiry and inquiry of the appraiser Sung Changwon of this Court as to the appraiser Sung Changwon of this Court and the overall purport of pleadings, comprehensively taking into account the price of the damaged vehicle, the necessity of the means of movement, the situation of the accident in this case, the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle, and the cost of borrowing and lending in ordinary cases, the period for which the borrowing and lending of the damaged vehicle is required for the damaged vehicle is 4 days, the appropriate repair period excluding the cost of the parts procurement, and the daily rent for the leased vehicle is 67,500 won per day for the small and medium-sized vehicle which forms

1. ① There is no evidence to acknowledge that the damage occurred to the damaged vehicle due to the instant accident was actually required for 14 days or more for the purpose of repairing the damaged vehicle (the defendant KimA claims that 134 days or more have been required). The repair period of the damaged vehicle is sufficient for 4 days, and ② Even if 14 days or more have been actually required for the repair of the damaged vehicle, it is reasonable to acknowledge that the repair period is longer long due to the difficulty in procuring parts, such as the damaged vehicle, and the rent is high-priced imported vehicle with a large amount of rent, it is reasonable for the owner to own the risk and enjoy the benefit. The purpose of recognizing rent during the repair period as ordinary damages is to compensate for the damage suffered by the victim due to the absence of the means of movement during the repair period. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff is liable for the ordinary damages even if the damaged vehicle exceeds the part due to the absence of the means of movement, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to know that the insured vehicle's special damages occurred during the repair period due to the lack of the means of movement.

③ The terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s automobile insurance provide that if it is necessary to use a non-business vehicle on behalf of another motor vehicle during the period when the non-business motor vehicle is damaged or spoiled, the rent shall be paid, and the amount thereof shall be the ordinary fee required for leasing the same kind of motor vehicle in respect of the model that can be substituted by the leased motor vehicle, based only on the case of leasing the motor vehicle. At present, in the insurance business practice, the new car price in the insurance business practice is at least 10,00,000 won, the trade name was changed to the "GTho Twrenk Ltd." (after July 2015).

The rental fee is recognized on the basis of the ordinary car rental fee.

④ The leased vehicle borrowed by Defendant KimB differs from the damaged vehicle, manufacturing company, model, price, etc.

(5) The ratio of the daily rent to the new car price on the basis of the discount rate of a large rental car company shall be calculated as about 0.5% for small and medium-sized vehicles.

④ Considering the price of the damaged vehicle, the necessity of the means of movement, the circumstances of the instant accident and the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle, etc., it is reasonable to determine the amount obtained by multiplying the rate of 13,50,000 won by 5% per day for the new vehicle’s rent per day. Accordingly, the rent per day is KRW 67,50 ( = 13,00,000, 000 x 005). (C) Ultimately, the amount of damages equivalent to the rent that the Plaintiff has to pay to Defendant KimA is KRW 270,000 ( = 67,500 x 4 days).

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, in relation to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s loan obligation against Defendant KimA does not exceed 270,000 won, and as long as Defendant KimA is disputing the scope of the obligation, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant KimB is unlawful and dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant KimB is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.