손해배상(기)
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. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 3, 1999, the Plaintiff purchased the car car from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).
B. The defendant means a panel that is located at the lower end of the front side of the front side of the panel in a one-year period from November 13, 2000 to November 12, 2001, and produced from October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1999, with a panel replacing the presses of the lower end of the side of the panel vehicle.
The voluntary repair was conducted for the treatment (prevention of melting in metal) of the audience (Sides).
C. On March 30, 2006, the Defendant asserted from the Plaintiff that the de facto panel of the instant vehicle was corroded, and accepted the instant vehicle without compensation (hereinafter “instant repair”) through the Defendant’s partner B industrial company, who is the Defendant’s partner, in terms of the service for the customer who requested repair.
As of March 31, 2006, the date of the instant repair, the number of years of use of the instant vehicle remains six years and seven months. The odometer is 140,185km, and the number of years of use of the instant vehicle as of August 21, 2013 remains for 14 years, and the odometer is 260,000km.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Defendant’s cooperation company, the main point of the Plaintiff’s argument, repaired the Plaintiff to replace all six of the instant vehicle panel with a new product. However, in fact, only two of the instant vehicle panel was partially replaced, and the panel was replaced by an erroneous method, such as attaching the panel to a oxygen adjoining method, rather than carbon dioxide solution, and thus, the instant vehicle’s interfacel panel was re-issuedd around October 2012.
Therefore, the defendant was caused by the plaintiff's failure to repair the vehicle of this case.