손해배상
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who leases and operates BMW 520D D vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicles”) from IMW 520D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant vehicles”) in the name of his spouse C.
B. The Plaintiff is operating the instant vehicle.
The defendant who runs the comprehensive automobile maintenance business around February 2018 after partial destruction, such as lurging off, has been entrusted with the repair.
C. After repairing the instant vehicle by painting it, the Defendant received KRW 570,000 from the Plaintiff on February 27, 2018 and delivered the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant asserts that the instant vehicle is owned by the Korea Social Services Korea Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff is not the owner of the instant vehicle. Thus, the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit on the premise that the repair of the instant vehicle was erroneous, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff, is unlawful, since it was filed by a person without standing to sue.
However, in a performance lawsuit, a person who asserts that he/she is the person entitled to demand performance has standing to sue and has standing to be the defendant, and the plaintiff and the defendant do not need to be the person entitled to demand performance or the person responsible for performance.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da13927, Sept. 18, 1998). Accordingly, the Defendant’s main defense is without merit.
3. Judgment on the merits
A. The gist of the party’s assertion asserted that the Plaintiff caused damages equivalent to KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s error in the color of the instant vehicle. Accordingly, the Defendant planned considerable expenses, such as replacement of a door, but did not perform any obligation on the ground that the Plaintiff had done so only to the extent that it became aware of the date of indication.