2014 Gaz. 128855(the principal claim) Confirmation of the existence of an obligation

2014Ba5361 (Counterclaim) Compensation for damages

New* *

Seoul

Attorney Jin-ok et al.*

Park *

Seoul

Attorney Noh Jeong-soo*

September 22, 2015

October 13, 2015

1. Seoul Gangdong-gu***** (** the same) location********** the gas station on September 21, 2014, the Defendant’s ownership******************** the damage liability against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) due to a mixed or similar type of motor vehicle with 120 multiple motor vehicles.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 2,077,200 won with 5% interest per annum from November 19, 2014 to October 13, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s remaining main claim and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s remaining counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

4. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Main Station: Gangdong-gu Seoul**** (** the same) materials************ the gas station on September 21, 2014: around 44

one defendant's ownership****** * due to mixed oil oil oil oil oil, 120D motor vehicles

It is confirmed that the damages liability against the defendant does not exist more than 50,000 won.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff (the counter defendant, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") is only the defendant (the counter plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff").

C) The amount of KRW 18,838,400 to 18,838,400 as well as the amount of full payment from the day following the service of the copy of the counterclaim in this case

shall pay 20% interest per annum.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

(a) The plaintiff is a person who is engaged in the gas station business in the name of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government********************************************************? (hereinafter referred to as “the gas station in this case”), and the defendant**********************?********************** the motor vehicle in this case).

B. On September 21, 2014, at around 22:44, the Defendant: (a) driven the instant vehicle; (b) stopped at the station of the instant case; (c) left the station of the instant case without stopping him; and (d) demanded a gas station equivalent to KRW 30,00 won to the employees B of the station of the instant case; and (b) B stopped the gas station of the instant vehicle, which is a vehicle exclusively used for diesel, and asked A to stop the gas station of the instant vehicle, and caused an accident involving the mixture of diesel and gasoline remaining on the instant vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

다. 이에 A은 바로 이 사건 자동차의 수리를 위하여 이 사건 자동차가 가입되어 있는 보험회사에 연락을 하였고, 견인차 기사인 C은 2014. 9. 21. 23 : 00경 이 사건 자동차를 견인하기 위하여 이 사건 자동차의 시동을 2 ~ 3초 정도 걸었다가 시동을 껐으며 , 그 다음날 13 : 30경 다른 견인차 기사인 D는 이 사건 자동차의 시동을 켜지 않은 상태로 이 사건 자동차를 000000 주식회사 강동서비스센터로 견인하였다 .

D. The instant motor vehicle was not operated from the date of the instant accident, and was stored in the Gangnam Service Center, Gangnam-gu, Inc., Ltd., and was kept. A’s pro-Japanese Motor Vehicle Maintenance Company, from June 30, 2015 to July 6, 2015, was engaged in clean learning, which is the fuel system of the instant motor vehicle, from June 30, 2015, and A was on July 7, 2015.

6. The instant motor vehicle started to be operated from the time of delivery.

E. The Defendant used 31 hours from September 22, 2014 to October 23, 2014 due to the instant accident, by borrowing and lending foreign vehicles of this species. The lending cost is equivalent to 224,000 won per day (320,000 won per day x 30% per day).

F. The Defendant, due to the instant accident, stored the instant vehicle in the Gangnam Service Center, 000, from September 26, 2014 to October 21, 2014, and the storage fees are equivalent to KRW 20,000 per day.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

이 사건 사고는 피고의 아들인 A이 세단 형태의 경유 차량인 이 사건 자동차를 주유하면서 휘발유 주유기 앞에 차를 세운 후 이 사건 주유소 직원에게 경유 차량임을 밝히지 않아 발생한 점, 이 사건 자동차와 외관이 동일한 휘발유 차량이 출시되어 있어서 외관상으로 경유 차량과 휘발유 차량의 구별이 어려운 점, 이 사건 주유소 직원이 이 사건 사고 발생 당시 ' 휘발유 가득이요 ' 라고 외치면서 주유를 시작하였으므로, A이 주의를 기울였다면 위 직원이 이 사건 자동차의 유종을 휘발유로 오인하였다는 사실을 알 수 있었던 점 등을 감안할 때 원고의 책임은 40 % 미만으로 제한되어야 하고 , 손해배상의 범위 역시 이 사건 자동차에 혼유된 휘발유의 양이 1리터 정도에 불과한 점, 이 사건 사고 전후로 이 사건 자동차의 시동을 켠 적이 없는 점을 고려할 때, 통상적인 연료계통 라인 클리닝 작업 비용 60만 원과 이 사건 자동차의 수리에 필요한 최대 3일의 대차비를 포함한 돈 중 원고의 과실비율인 40 % 에 상당한 50만 원을 초과하지 않는다 .

B. Defendant’s assertion

A person engaged in the oiling service has the duty of care to verify the kind of oil used for the pertinent vehicle and oil. A did not stop before the Plaintiff’s employee, at the oil station of this case. However, although the vehicle of this case stopped in front of the vehicle of this case, and the vehicle of this case was attached with a sign informing that it was a transit vehicle when opening a cover of the fuel in this case, the accident of this case occurred due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the duty of care. Thus, the Plaintiff, as the user of this case, is obligated to maintain the instant vehicle of this case from 11,356,40 won, and the repair cost of the instant vehicle of this case suffered by the Defendant from the accident of this case from 22 September 2, 2014 to 31 October 23, 2014 to 208, 2014, 300,0000 won, including the rental fee of this case from 31 hours a day before the completion of repair.

3. Determination;

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① there is a diesel sign on a lid lid of fuel in front of the fuel in front of the vehicle, ② the employee B of the gas station of this case asked the gas station without stopping in front of the cover and stopping in front of the fuel in front of the cover and requesting the gas station to pay the gasoline in this case without paying compensation for damages to the vehicle, although he was obliged to verify the kind of the vehicle by checking the type of the vehicle to pay the fuel in front of the fuel in front of the lid of the fuel in this case, and submitted it to this court, ② there is a duty of care to check the type of the vehicle to pay the fuel in front of the fuel in this case.

B. Limitation of liability for damages

However, even though A, the Defendant’s ASEAN, as the driver of the instant motor vehicle, could not be seen as a failure to perform his duties even though he correctly revealed the kind of oil used for the instant motor vehicle to B, who is an employee of the instant motor vehicle, and confirmed whether the oil is being used in a normal manner by explicitly demanding it. Such negligence on the part of the Defendant is also the cause of the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the instant accident. Thus, the degree of such negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of damages that the Plaintiff should compensate for, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s liability is limited to 90%.

(c) Repair expenses;

(3) According to the evidence No. 4, the 6th day of the repair work of this case * the 6th day of the repair work of this case * the 5th day after the accident of this case * the 6th day after the 6th day of the repair work of this case * the 5th day after the 6th day of the repair work of this case : the 5th day after the 6th day of the repair work of this case : the 5th day after the 6th day of the repair work of this case : the 5th day after the 6th day of the repair work of this case : the 5th day after the 6th day of the repair work of this case : the 1st day after the 6th day of the repair work of this case, the appraisal of this case 4th day after the 7th day after the 5th day of the repair work of this case - the 5th day of the appraisal work of this case - the 5th day after the 2th day of the repair work of this case.

10. From September 22, 2014 to October 23, 2014, the term of the lending period and the period of the storage is considerably more than the repair period of the instant vehicle due to the ordinary mixed and similar type of vehicle between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant’s agent stated that the instant vehicle had been engaged in clean learning, which is the fuel systemRa from June 30, 2015 to July 6, 2015, it is reasonable to regard the period necessary for the repair of the instant vehicle as seven days due to the instant accident, and the Defendant’s agent used the instant vehicle from September 22, 2014 to October 23, 2014, which is the date of the instant accident, and the storage fees of the instant vehicle from September 20, 2014 to October 24, 2014 to the date of the instant accident, and the fact that the Defendant’s agent kept the instant vehicle as the storage fees of the instant vehicle from September 20, 2014 to 2006.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view the loan expenses necessary for the instant accident as KRW 1,568,00 ( = 224,00 won x 7 days) and the storage fees as KRW 1,40,00 ( = 20,00 won x 7 days). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is reasonable within the extent of recognition as above.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 2,08,00 won = 2,300 won = 60,00 won + 1,568,000 won + 90% + 1,40,000 won + 1,568,00 won for repair expenses) x 90% after the accident of this case occurred to the defendant due to the accident of this case, which is reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the plaintiff's obligation from November 19, 2014 to October 13, 2015, which is the date of the decision of this case, which is 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until the date of full payment, and as long as the defendant does not have any obligation to claim damages to the plaintiff as above, there is no interest in the plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim are justified within the scope of each recognition, each of them is accepted. The plaintiff's remaining principal lawsuit and the defendant's remaining counterclaim are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge semi-Decree