logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.09 2017나37057
인수채무금 청구의 소
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. Party status 1) The Plaintiff is a company that sells the bent motor vehicle, which operates the Service Center along with it, and carries out the business of repairing motor vehicles and supplying parts. 2) The Defendant is an insurance company that has concluded an automobile insurance contract with a Achip motor vehicle owned by the Chang Education Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “original Education”) (hereinafter “Achip vehicle”).

3) Nonparty New Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Card”)

B) A passenger car at the benpt (hereinafter referred to as “victimed vehicle”) shall be

B) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s owner. (b) The instant accident and the Plaintiff’s damaged vehicle repair 1) Nonparty C operated the damaged vehicle in the parking lot located in the Goyang-dong, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si (hereinafter “instant accident”) around July 4, 2015.

2) On July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff received a request for repair of damaged vehicles from C, and delivered repair to C on August 7, 2015, after exchanging the fronter, the left-hand fence, and the air-damer. The repair cost incurred from the repair is KRW 20,822,536. C. On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for mediation against the new card, etc. on July 31, 2015 as Seoul Central District Court filed an application for the repair cost in accordance with the instant accident. On September 18, 2015, the court did not have any obligation to compensate for the new card of creative education in relation to the instant accident, exceeding KRW 1,745,040,00 (hereinafter “instant adjustment order”).

A. The above decision was finalized around that time. 【The fact that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is requested to repair the damaged vehicle.

arrow