beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The grounds for the quoted decision of the court of first instance are as follows, except for adding the following judgments, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Determination 1 as to the Defendant’s assertion that “the Defendant’s assertion to nullify the land unfair will” is that the external owner of the vehicle entering the gist of the Defendant’s assertion is a branch owner, and the Plaintiff, which is merely a branch owner, is not liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, and thus, the Defendant is not liable to compensate for damages to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, the foregoing payment shall not be made in order to compensate for damages incurred to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. 2) The agreement entered into between the freight trucking business operator holding a license for trucking transport business and the borrower who actually owns the vehicle, transfers the vehicle externally to the trucking business operator by being registered in the name of the trucking business operator and belongs to the trucking business operator, and the borrower conducts an internal management and account, and the trucking business is in the form of transportation business in which each borrower pays the purchase fees to the trucking business operator.
Therefore, since losses incurred due to a traffic accident caused by a rolling stock (such as suspension of business or reduction of the exchange value of a vehicle) are actually borne by a rolling stock owner, even in the case of this case, the losses incurred by the rolling stock, which is the rolling stock, caused by the rolling stock, shall be borne by the rolling stock owner.
In this situation, when the defendant compensates for damages caused by the above-mentioned drilling accident due to his own negligence, the conclusion of the payment agreement with the counterpart as the plaintiff is an effective agreement reflecting economic substance, and the party who did not incur losses caused by the above-mentioned drilling accident is merely external.