자동차수리비
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 21,252 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from November 20, 2012 to September 4, 2014.
1. Facts without dispute;
A. The plaintiff is a company that aims at the automobile repair business, and the defendant is a company that engages in automobile insurance business.
B. From June 2010 to July 2012, the Plaintiff attached Form from the Defendant’s automobile insurance policyholder.
1. A total of 87 motor vehicles repair is requested as indicated in the table, and it is accepted by the Defendant, and the Defendant received the same automobile repair cost as indicated in the “Defendant’s payment repair cost” column in the same table.
2. Claim for the principal lawsuit and determination thereof
A. Attached Form on the ground of the principal claim
1. Despite the fact that the reasonable repair cost of each motor vehicle stated in the table is the amount of "repair cost for the plaintiff's assertion" in the same table, the plaintiff's repair cost is a total of 78,989,660 won as stated in the "amount claimed in the plaintiff's main claim" column in the same table
1. As indicated in the table column, the sum of the amounts for each vehicle shall be KRW 78,979,660, or the Plaintiff shall claim KRW 78,989,660.
the defendant was not paid by the defendant.
B. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 16 and 18 No. 16 and No. 18, the Plaintiff’s judgment
1. Although the defendant has repaired an amount equivalent to KRW 4,600 (excluding value-added tax) for 5 vehicles from a show showor, 4,600 (excluding value-added tax) and the exchange cost of 14,720 (excluding value-added tax) for automobiles from No. 11, the fact that it was denied at the time of the first situation by the defendant.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 21,252 won (=(4,600 won 】 14,720 won 】 0.1) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 20, 2012 following the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to November 20, 2012 to September 4, 2014, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to resist the scope of the obligation of performance.
2, however, Appendix 2
1. As to each motor vehicle indicated in the list, the remainder of the plaintiff's repair cost is accepted.