logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.11.01 2016가단25333
손해배상
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 179,200 as well as 5% per annum from October 13, 2016 to November 1, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around March 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the Defendant; (b) decided to repay the said loan by July 23, 2014; (c) on July 2014, the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); (d) on July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff saw and threatened the Plaintiff, while taking a bath to the Plaintiff; and (c) on July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff expressed a desire and intimidation to the Plaintiff.

① Inasmuch as the Plaintiff suffered from injury due to the Defendant’s assault as above, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 2,181,750, and KRW 350,000,000,000,000,000 for lost income (i.e., KRW 100,000 x 35 days) as damages, and damages for delay. ② The Plaintiff paid the fees, repair expenses, and administrative fines incurred during the Defendant’s arbitrary use of the instant vehicle. As such, the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 189,00,00 (i.e., KRW 1050,00 x 18 months), repair expenses, KRW 94,870, and KRW 548,350, and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant assaulted the Plaintiff on July 9, 2014, July 23, 2014, solely on the written evidence Nos. 1-1 to 5, 5, and 8, as to the claim for damages caused by assault.

In order to treat the injury caused by the Defendant’s assault, the Plaintiff received medical treatment as alleged by the Plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered loss due to failure to obtain income, as alleged by the Plaintiff, while receiving treatment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence 4-2, Gap evidence 9-1, and Eul evidence 4-1 as to the claim for damages due to the use of the instant vehicle, the defendant, on August 19, 2015, delivered the instant vehicle to the plaintiff as security on July 9, 2014.

arrow