2016 Ghana 119684 (Counterclaim)

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay 15,415,684 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and 5% per annum from April 14, 2016 to January 31, 2017; and 15% per annum from the following day to the full payment date.

3. Each of the remaining claims and counterclaims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

5. Of total litigation costs, 3/4 out of total litigation costs and counterclaims shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) respectively.

Counterclaim: The judgment that the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 30,184,096 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from April 14, 2016 to the service date of a duplicate of the counterclaim and 15% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 14, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a C-Motor vehicle on April 14, 2016; and (b) did not properly operate the brake system within the Defendant’s gas station; (c) caused the instant accident by negligence; (d) hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. As the Defendant requested repair to D, which is the manufacturer of the above automatic set machines, D is the repair cost.

19,269,606 won (including value-added tax) were presented.

C. The Plaintiff raised an objection to D’s repair cost because the repair cost is too excessive, and the Defendant received repair from D, the manufacturer of the said automatic set machines, but continued to receive the pet service, such as future maintenance, management, etc. (including value-added tax) and received repair from D around May 26, 2016.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, the result of on-site inspection by this court, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The parties' assertion

1) Part of the principal lawsuit (Plaintiff’s assertion)

The plaintiff asserts that there is no liability for damages exceeding 3,152,050 won of the repair cost of the above automatic rent system due to the accident of this case.

2) Part of the counterclaim (Defendant’s assertion)

In the instant accident, the Defendant asserted that the repair cost of the said Amateur was KRW 19,269,606 (including value-added tax), and that the Plaintiff did not obtain KRW 9,561,738, which could have been earned by operating the Amateur due to the damage to the said Amateur, and that the gas supply revenue was reduced due to the failure to operate the Amateur, and that the Plaintiff was liable to compensate for KRW 30,184,096, total of KRW 1,352,752, which has been reduced.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the evidence that there is no dispute between the parties or the results of the on-site inspection conducted by this court, the results of the appraiser E's appraisal, the supplementary appraisal results

○ The instant accident caused the collision between the above AED No. 1, No. 2, and No. 1, and No. 1, No. 2, and No. 1 and No. 2, and the entire part and LED lighting should be replaced.

○ An accident in the instant case, the part of the brid was already destroyed at the time of the destruction.

30% reduction condition was 30% reduction condition.

○ The Defendant purchased the instant automatic rent from Nonparty F, and accepted the instant automatic rent from Nonparty F on May 26, 2016, taking into account KRW 19,269,606 (including value-added tax) around May 26, 2016, from D operated by G.

2) Determination on the part concerning the repair cost of the automatic washing machine

(A) As the Defendant accepted the instant automatic rent in KRW 19,269,606, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the said repair cost and damages for delay, barring any special circumstance.

(B) Since the Plaintiff asserts that the above repair cost is inappropriate, comprehensively taking account of the evidence revealed earlier, the appropriate repair cost was calculated based on the weight of the standard goods for the repair cost of 1, 2, 70,000 won, taking into account the decrease in durability (30 per cent), but the above evidence can be considered as a whole; 1) the Defendant cannot but have to repair the instant automatic rent damaged by the Plaintiff’s negligence; 2) in order to ensure the repair of the instant automatic rent, such as the repair cost of the instant automatic set machines, the maintenance cost of the instant automatic set, which was approved from D, and 2) the appraisal cost of the appraiser is not inevitable to obtain repair from the seller; 3) the repair cost of the instant automatic set, which was assessed by the appraiser based on the automatic set of 0,000 won, and the replacement cost of the instant automatic set of 10,70,000 won, which was calculated solely on the basis of the standard repair cost of the automatic set of 10,000 won, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant paid the replacement cost of 207.

(C) However, the instant automatic rent is installed around October 2014, and the Plaintiff’s responsibility is limited to 80%, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the fact that the instant automatic rent was established around October 2014 and that one year and six months elapsed from the time of the instant accident, and that there was a change in each accessory or durability of the automatic rentr during that period.

3) Determination as to claims for operating revenue of automatic scrapers

The defendant has 222,366 won per day of the instant automatic set machines, and from April 14, 2016.

Since it was not operated for 43 days until May 26, 2016, it asserts that the operating income of KRW 9,561,738 was incurred during the above period.

However, in full view of the following points that can be seen through the evidence mentioned above, ① the repair period of the instant automated vehicle is only one day, ② the Defendant cannot accept the Defendant’s claim for this part of the claim based on his opinion on the repair cost, even though there is room to claim the repair cost after receiving the instant automated vehicle first, ③ the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to view the operating revenue of the instant automated vehicle amounting to 22,366 won.

4) Determination as to claim for a gas station business loss

The defendant asserts that the driver's loss caused by the destruction of the automatic rent system of this case was caused by the decrease of the driver's loss, and thus, the defendant should compensate for the loss of business equivalent to KRW 1,352,752.

The repair period for the instant automatic rent is limited to one day, and the Defendant was able to repair by paying the repair cost first, and the damage and oil to the instant automatic renter.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to recognize that there is a special causal relationship between customer reduction, this part of the claim is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, is obligated to pay the repair cost of KRW 15,415,684 (i.e., KRW 19,269,606 x 0.8) and damages for delay at each rate of KRW 15% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from April 14, 2016, which is the date of the instant accident, until the date of the instant judgment, to the date of the instant judgment, and to pay damages for delay at each rate of KRW 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim and the defendant's counterclaim are justified within the scope of each above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit.