손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's motion to intervene in the case is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. Of the costs of lawsuit.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Hyundai Motor Vehicle Matadom C (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and the Defendant is a person who operates a motor vehicle repair shop with the trade name “D”.
B. On March 16, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) while driving the instant vehicle while driving the instant vehicle, caused a traffic accident, and requested the Defendant to repair the instant vehicle; and (b) the Defendant: (c) transferred the instant vehicle to the Defendant on the following occasions: (d) the latter Twiter exchange, (e) the latter Twiter exchange, (e.g., the exchange of white and white panels; and (d) the exchange of marketing and exhaust pipes for the panel of the pridged floor; and (e) the Plaintiff delivered the instant vehicle on March 16,
C. On July 2013, water leakage has occurred on the ridge floor of the instant vehicle. The Plaintiff completed the repair of the instant vehicle by bringing the present car repair cost of KRW 420,000,000 in total of KRW 6,000,000,000,000 for the vehicle repair cost at the port of the two owners of the instant vehicle services.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As the Plaintiff’s Intervenor filed an application for intervention in the instant lawsuit for winning the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor had interests in the outcome of the relevant lawsuit in order to intervene in the instant lawsuit in order to assist either party in a specific litigation case. The interest here refers to the legal interest rather than the economic or emotional interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da26924, Sept. 8, 200). In this case, the Plaintiff claimed damages against the Defendant since the Defendant’s fault in repairing the instant vehicle caused water leakage of the instant vehicle.
However, this is related to whether the Defendant was negligent in the process of repairing the instant vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff, a manufacturer of the instant vehicle, is the result of the lawsuit.