beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's main grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the defendant's incidental appeal are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is added to the evidence additionally
Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of "2. Additional Determination" as to the allegations emphasized or added by the plaintiff and the defendant in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the ground for the first instance judgment.
2. Additional determination
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the Plaintiff’s claim for repair costs is the actual owner of the instant truck, and the Plaintiff, who is the land owner, bears the automobile repair costs independently pursuant to the land entry contract. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages of 16,561,60 won for the repair costs of the instant truck caused by the instant accident. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages of 16,561,60 won under a contract entered into between the transport business operator holding a license for trucking business and the borrower who actually owns the instant truck. 2) In the form of the transportation business in which each borrower registers his/her automobile under the name of the trucking business operator and transfers the automobile to the transport business operator, and each borrower pays the rent to the transport business operator while carrying out independent management and account, and thus, it is within the form of the transportation business in which each borrower pays the rent to the transport business operator. Thus, seeking for damages due to the ownership infringement is externally within the authority of the incorporated company. Therefore, the entry company is subject to the insurer.
Supreme Court Decision 200