A person shall be appointed.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 2/5 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Until the date of full payment, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

(n)

A. The plaintiffs are the joint operators of the ○○○ Military Station located in the Daegu Suwon-dong, Daegu Suwon-dong, and the defendant is the driver of the body-man car (hereinafter referred to as the "automobile of this case").

B. On June 29, 2012: around 22, the Defendant set the instant passenger car by using the automatic washing machine (hereinafter “instant automatic washing machine”) at the gas station of the Plaintiffs.

The employee of the plaintiffs first set the vehicle simply by using high voltage gas sprayers, and other employees (hereinafter referred to as the "third employee") stopped the vehicle of this case, and operated the automobile of this case after driving the automobile of this case. However, immediately after the commencement of the vehicle, the vehicle of this case was pushed down again, and thereafter, the vehicle of this case was turned down again, and the vehicle of this case was damaged (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").

C. From June 30, 2012 to July 17, 2012, the Plaintiffs: (a) have to repair the instant automatic rent from Kimsung (hereinafter “mutual Eastyang Services”); and (b) paid the instant automatic rent of KRW 15,086,80 (13,715,280 + value-added tax) on August 3, 2012.

【Ground of recognition】 The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs explained to the effect that: (a) the employees of the vehicle set forth in the instant claim made a stop by inducing and stopping the instant vehicle; and (b) the Defendant did not follow the notification to the same effect even during the instant vehicle, but did not follow the notification; (c) but did not follow the notification, thereby damaging the instant automatic vehicle due to the negligence of changing the speed of the automobile into the state of driving at the speed of the motor vehicle due to a yellow change and undergoing the speed of the motor vehicle; and (d) sought payment of the amount stated in the claim (15,086,08 won + KRW 1,335,700 + KRW 2,836,409 + KRW 409).

B. Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant did not hear the explanation from the three staff prior to the use of the instant automatic exemption machine to convert the transmission machine into the parking condition, and asserts that the instant car does not run from the three vehicles.

3. Determination:

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged in full view of the evidence No. 6, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 3, each video No. 3, the testimony by the witness Kim-ho, the results of the video verification by this court, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident of this case.

① Since the instant automatic tax exemption is a so-called type of a motor vehicle, the driver of the motor vehicle must change the speed change to a parking condition, or prevent the vehicle from driving the motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is driven through brack.

② In CCTV images taken at the time of the instant accident, it is confirmed that the three staff members had the front door to the driver’s seat on the Defendant prior to the instant car driving. (The three staff members engaged in the same behavior even when they rent other vehicles) In such a case, the three staff members explained the Defendant that the three staff members would change the transmission engine to the parking condition.

③ On the instant automatic taxation date, a notice of “drivers' is attached to the instant automatic taxation period, and the notice refers to the entry of the vehicle into the regular location, and the vehicle is marked as “Iso. Maso. Maso. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o.

④ On June 29, 2012: (a) around 16:22:14, the instant vehicle started to operate the instant vehicle. At the same time, the instant vehicle was turned out, but at around 16:2:18, the instant vehicle stopped as the instant vehicle was tightly pushed down, brate, etc. at around 16:2:20, and the instant vehicle stopped. At around 16:20, the instant vehicle was driven in the future; (b) 16:22:0,000,000: (c) the instant vehicle was turned down at around 16:21:21; and (d) the instant vehicle was again driven in the future; (e) the instant vehicle was changed to the instant vehicle’s operating condition after the instant vehicle was changed to the instant vehicle’s operating condition; and (e) the Defendant appears to have changed to the instant vehicle’s operating condition after the instant vehicle was changed to the instant vehicle’s operating condition (the instant vehicle was changed to the instant vehicle’s operating condition.

(6) Therefore, the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's mistake, and the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case.

B. Limitation on liability

According to the purport of Gap evidence 6 and Eul evidence 1 as a whole and the following circumstances, i.e., the window of the automobile of this case at the time when the three staff members explain the operation of the transformation season, i.e., ① the window of the automobile of this case at the time of the three staff members' explanation of the operation of the transition season (the defendant seems to close the three-time window using high voltage sprayers) i.e., it appears that the defendant could not have sufficiently explained. ② The notice attached to the regular plane of this case is not significant, but it is difficult for the driver to confirm it because the notice attached to the regular plane of the vehicle of this case at the third time is attached to the top of the vehicle entering the third time, and ③ The third staff did not confirm whether the defendant operated the change speed in accordance with the explanation, and did not take prompt measures immediately after the accident, it affected the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damage.

Therefore, the defendant's liability is limited to 70%.

C. 1) The repair cost of this case’s automatic taxation period’s repair cost is 15,086,808 as seen earlier. In full view of the description of evidence No. 4 and the purport of the entire statement and oral argument, it is determined that the repair cost is within a reasonable scope.

(ii) the third revenue loss;

The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant vehicle was unable to operate the instant automatic vehicle for 18 days from June 30, 2012 to July 17, 2012 due to the instant accident, and sought payment for the reduction in the amount of the rent revenue arising therefrom.

However, according to the records in Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 12, and Eul evidence 13, the plaintiffs' 90 days from April 1, 2012 to June 29, 2012, the plaintiff's 6,678,50, and the 54 days from July 18, 2012 to October 17, 2012, it is recognized that the 92 days from the 92 days from the 20th day of the accident in this case were the facts.

According to the above facts, the amount of loss from the tax revenue due to the accident of this case is 1,16,52 won [62,029 won (11,289, 354 won): 182 days, and 18 days, if the amount of loss from the tax revenue due to the accident of this case is discarded) x 18 days.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

3) The Plaintiffs asserted that the oil sales decline due to the breakdown of the instant automatic rent machine, and sought payment of KRW 2,836,409.

It is difficult to readily conclude that the oil sales decrease after the instant accident only with the descriptions of No. 10, No. 10, and No. 111. Even if such fact is acknowledged, the evidence submitted alone is insufficient to recognize that the decrease in the oil sales has a causal relationship with the damage of the instant automatic set machines.

Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

4) Fruits set-off (Liability of the Defendant 70%)

(1) Repair expenses: 15,086, 808 won x 0.7 = 10,560, 765 won (a fractional reduction of less than won; hereinafter the same shall apply) < Amended by Act No. 116, 116, 52 won: 1, 116, 52 won x 0.7 = 781,565 won.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs 11,342,30 won (10,560,765 won + 781,565 won) and damages for delay by adding 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 29, 2012, which is the date of the instant judgment, until June 14, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.