beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,115,715 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from August 20, 2015 to July 28, 2016.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 as to the repair cost claim, the plaintiff was found to have towed the defendant's new character car at the defendant's request on September 15, 2007 and completed repair of 7,753,135 won until October 27, 2007, and there is no counter-proof.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above repair cost of KRW 7,753,135 and damages for delay.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the storage fees for 18,60,000 won (20,000 won per month x 93 months) as well as delay damages, since the Plaintiff kept the said car at the repair company operated by the Plaintiff from September 15, 2007 to June 15, 2015.
A motor vehicle management businessman may receive management expenses, and the management expenses may be collected from the actual expenses incurred in the storage and management of the motor vehicles left alone in a rearrangement project site for at least 72 hours from the date of leaving the maintenance project site for at least 72 hours and moving to another place or notifying the owner of the motor vehicle of the completion of the maintenance, even after informing the owner of the completion of the maintenance to the other place. (However, the amount shall not exceed the parking fees of the public parking lot in the relevant area, and the period within 72 hours from
(A) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff completed repair of the said car on October 27, 2007 and notified the Defendant of the completion of the maintenance in light of Article 65(1) of the Automobile Management Act, Article 137(1)4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act, Article 137(1)5 of the Automobile Management Act, and Article 137(1)5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act. In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the Defendant did not release the said car, but the monthly parking fee of the public parking lot (public parking lot No. 43) in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s maintenance company is recognized.
Therefore, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.