logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.23 2017나86851
차량수리비
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a corporation that runs the automobile maintenance business with its place of business in Yangcheon-ro, Gangseo-gu, Seoul and the defendant is a corporation that runs the insurance business.

B. ANAS car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) was destroyed by a vehicle that entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff received a request for repair from B on September 6, 2016 from the borrower of the instant vehicle, and around that time, repaired the vehicle, such as the replacement and breaking of the front-hander, the front-hander, and painting.

After completion of the repair, the Plaintiff calculated the repair cost as KRW 42,080 per hour and applied for KRW 44,350 (hereinafter “instant part-time official fee”) and claimed KRW 996,677 in total for repair cost. However, on September 19, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 505,010 for repair cost calculated as KRW 24,550 for each part-time official fee in relation to the Plaintiff’s claim.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 23 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by appointing an independent adjuster after the repair of the instant vehicle and claiming the amount equivalent to the amount calculated by the said adjuster as repair cost, and the Defendant did not raise any objection even after receiving the said adjuster’s report. Therefore, the said repair cost was determined in accordance with the Insurance Business Supervision Regulations.

In addition, the Korean Industrial Relations Institute, which evaluated that the plaintiff's maintenance services are the maintenance services, calculated a much higher amount than the public services per hour of this case as a cost per hour. The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs assessed the public services as a reference material and there is no public trust, and it cannot be applied as it is because prices and wage increases are not properly reflected after the publication.

In addition, it is posted that it is one-time official in accordance with the Automobile Management Act.

arrow