logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.09.02 2019가단95983
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant would benefit from automobile insurance, and paid the Defendant the model C vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) at KRW 450,000 for two days, after hearing the Plaintiff’s argument that the Defendant would be able to benefit from automobile insurance.

During the Plaintiff’s operation of the instant vehicle, there was an accident of shocking high-class external vehicles by negligence.

However, unlike the defendant's explanation, the instant vehicle was a vehicle that could not benefit from insurance, and the plaintiff caused the accident to compensate directly for the damage suffered by the damaged vehicle.

The driver of the damaged vehicle requires the repair cost of KRW 51,00,000, monthly 600,000. The plaintiff has paid KRW 25,000,000, and the loan cost of KRW 8,00,000 so far.

The Defendant, while operating a normal rental car company and deceiving the Plaintiff as if the instant vehicle were able to benefit from automobile insurance, and the Plaintiff was thereby suffering losses while operating the instant vehicle by sirening it.

The defendant is liable for compensating for 33,00,000 won which the plaintiff paid to the plaintiff as part of the damages suffered by the plaintiff (=25,000,000 loan charges of KRW 8,000).

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is premised on the Defendant’s deception by notifying the Defendant to the effect that he/she operates his/her normal siren and is entitled to receive normal insurance benefits.

However, in light of the following points, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), and Eul evidence No. 1 are insufficient to admit the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's claim based on this premise cannot be accepted.

① The Plaintiff did not prepare a contract while sirening the instant vehicle, and the vehicle user fee is not only deemed to be a small amount compared to the expected vehicle value, but also is not a normal siren even if the number of the instant vehicle is not a normal siren.

arrow