채무부존재확인
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
on May 14, 2013, 20:50 W. from the original flives of Sho-si, Sho-si, Sho-si, Sho-si, Sho-si.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in Articles 1 through 3 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, in addition to the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of the first instance as follows, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary or additional parts] Prior to the “Determination on Counterclaim Claim” in Part 4, 7 of the 4th page, the head office and “the head office” shall be added.
The first to seventh parallels are as follows.
(1) In light of the fact that the daily rent per day of the instant track is about 90,470 won, and the fact that 9 days was spent for the repair of the instant track is not disputed between the parties, or can be recognized by the purport of entry and pleading in the evidence No. 6, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Defendant 651,384 won [i.e., 651,384 won [i., 814,230 won x 9 days x 80%) x 80%] with compensation equivalent to the rent according to the rate of negligence, unless there are special circumstances, 651,384 won [i.e., 9,00,000 won exceeds the above 9,000 won and the amount that the Defendant paid to E and F is included in the daily rent No. 90,000 won, and there is no evidence that there is no difference between the Plaintiff’s 1-1, 2-2 and the E-18 witness’s testimony.
2. Conclusion