손해배상(자)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 5,012,00 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from July 6, 2010 to May 8, 2015.
1.The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings and in images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 9, 10, and 12 (including the branches number with which each number is attached; hereinafter the same shall apply):
The plaintiff is a person who operates gas stations in Suwon City B with the trade name of C gas stations (hereinafter referred to as the "gas stations in this case), and the defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with D for E vehicles owned by it (hereinafter referred to as the "vehicle in this case").
B. D, around 09:25 on June 7, 2010, operated the instant vehicle and received a rent at the instant gas station, and entered the said vehicle into the automatic set-off machine (the model name: TRIPLX 200D; hereinafter the instant set-off vehicle) installed therein according to the employee’s guidance.
C. Among the Dos through which the instant vehicle passes through the instant vehicle, the instant vehicle was boomed in the front of the instant vehicle, and the instant vehicle was damaged by the passage of the instant vehicle, and the enjoying of and license for the instant vehicle was damaged.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). D.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 7,160,000 at the repair cost of the instant detailed period.
2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case was not caused by the malfunction of the detailed vehicle, but caused by negligence, such as that D, the driver of the vehicle in this case, is not in the middle of the detailed vehicle. Thus, the defendant who is the insurer of the vehicle in this case, is liable to pay the plaintiff the repair cost of the detailed vehicle in this case.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred solely due to the malfunction of the three machines managed by the plaintiff, so the defendant does not have an obligation to pay the repair cost of the three machines of this case.
3. Determination
A. In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 3 through 6, and 12 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings in video products, the following is so-called tunnel-type.