구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purpose of the entire pleadings, on the statements and images set forth in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3 to 5.
The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A with respect to BM7 vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”).
B. On May 4, 2016, A around 17:50, when the Defendant was running the vehicle, using the mechanical type automatic washing machine installed in the D gas station located in Yangsan City, which is operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant washing machine”), there was an accident that damages the exterior of the ceiling of the Plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 553,410 (excluding self-charges) as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred due to the erroneous operation of the instant detailed period. As such, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant detailed period, entered into the detailed service contract with A and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, bears the liability for damages under Articles 750 through 758 of the Civil Act or the liability for damages under Articles 390 through 667 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and to pay the Plaintiff the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff and the damages incurred therefrom.
B. It is not sufficient to recognize that the records and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 through 7 are damage to the outside of the plaintiff vehicle due to the malfunction of the plaintiff vehicle of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is without merit, without further examining the remainder of the claim.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.