beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase a motor vehicle of Quaz Blux, using the lease financing, and the Memerz: Memerz, model name: S350 Blux, engine displacement: 2987C, chassis number: A (hereinafter referred to as “instant motor vehicle”) after delivery.
However, there was a defect from time to time in which the engine was suspended during operation, and the lighting of the instrument board was removed, making it difficult to identify the instrument board at all.
As a result, the Plaintiff sustained damages of KRW 159,158,416, which was paid to the leased company due to its failure to operate or use the instant vehicle. The Plaintiff first claims against the Defendant for the amount of KRW 50 million and damages for delay.
2. Determination (whether or not a defect alleged by the Plaintiff is recognized) refers to that a judge’s conviction reaches the degree of conviction, and conviction refers to an absolute accuracy, such as certification of natural science or education, which does not mean an absolute accuracy, but refers to a high probability that is highly probable to believe that it is true in the daily life of ordinary persons and that it is not sufficient to establish a clear doubt or conjecture.
(2) On May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on December 10, 2009, the Plaintiff suffered an accident that was inferred by a combination of motor vehicles followed by the vehicle following the Plaintiff, and (b) on December 10, 209; (c) Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da56603, 5610; 2009Da94315, Jun. 10, 2010; and (d) Supreme Court Decision 201Da1828, Apr. 13, 2012; and (e) on May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on the ground that the vehicle was driven by the vehicle while driving the instant motor vehicle was stopped; (b) on the other hand, subparagraph 8 of this case’s evidence appears to have been insufficient as evidence that the Plaintiff was involved in the instant accident; (c)
In addition, Gap evidence No. 8 4 is also the plaintiff.