beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is a resident of Busan Jin-gu E Apartment (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), who is the owner of F X-Fex vehicle (hereinafter "Plaintiff vehicle"), and the defendant B is the owner of G Oscop vehicle (hereinafter "Defendant vehicle").
B. Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is an entrusted management entity that entered into a collective housing management contract with the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment on March 8, 2016, and Defendant D is the head of the instant apartment management office.
C. Around 7:00 on October 4, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle was parked on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in the instant apartment parking zone.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 through 4, and 7, Gap evidence No. 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. The plaintiff parked the plaintiff's vehicle in the parking zone of the apartment of this case, but when the defendant B shuts off the plaintiff's vehicle as the defendant's vehicle and double parking, the plaintiff's vehicle should be cut off the brakes of the vehicle so that the plaintiff's vehicle parked in the parking zone can be pushed off with the defendant's vehicle, but the plaintiff's contact address did not remain.
In this regard, Defendant C and Defendant D, the director of the management office, who are controlled entities, did not respond properly.
The Plaintiff’s business of delivering in the mutual name “H”. As such, the Defendants’ tort committed by the Defendants, resulting in damages such as not using the Plaintiff’s vehicle and paying taxi expenses, Defendant B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 750, 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 750, 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 63, 66 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act, and Article 75 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Rules.
Therefore, Defendant B, the Plaintiff, 11,700 won = taxi expense of KRW 10,200.