(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.15 2015가단5270182

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.15 2015가단5270182

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,310,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 12, 2015 to November 15, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff requested repair to the Defendant on June 3, 2015, when an automobile (hereinafter “the instant automobile”) recorded in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “AD6”) issued a warning, etc. of exhaust gas.

B. The Defendant initially inspected the instant vehicle, and diagnosed it as a breakdown related to posters by putting the end into practical condition and camping after checking the instant vehicle. On June 11, 2015, the occurrence of a phenomenon in which engine operation occurs while the main test was being carried out after the replacement of parts. The same year.

6. 17. Inspection after the decomposition of engines was conducted, but the engine was found to be difficult to function any longer due to the rupture of the croke case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact of recognition of liability for damages, the defendant is a company which was requested by the plaintiff to repair the motor vehicle of this case, and the defendant is obligated to accurately identify the cause of the breakdown and deliver the motor vehicle which has been repaired with an adequate repair suitable for the cause to the plaintiff. Since the motor vehicle of this case among the main test of the defendant's main test was lost to the extent that the engine cannot function, the defendant's failure to perform its duty under the above contract, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that there is no causation between the defendant's repair and damage to the motor vehicle of this case since six years have passed since the vehicle of this case was released, and the odometer exceeded 100,000 kilometers, but the defendant is obligated to accurately investigate the reason for the failure and repair or replacement of parts corresponding thereto, and the engine of this case was damaged during the final driving test after the defendant completed repair, and there was no fault in inspection and repair.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2014.1.21.선고 2013가단25067 판결

-창원지방법원 2016.12.21 2016가단100631

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.06 2014가단5282164

-대구지방법원 2016.11.02 2015가단124344

-서울서부지방법원 2016.11.03 2016나33183