logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.12.13 2015가단2582
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,362,041 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 4, 2014 to December 13, 2016, and the following.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a person who operates a gas station in Jung-Eup Si. The Defendant is the owner of the EMW 520D car using light oil as fuel (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. At around 12:10 on January 4, 2014, the Plaintiff requested an employee of the gas station operated by the Defendant to pay an amount equivalent to KRW 50,00 to the oil station under the condition that the instant vehicle was dead at the time of starting the instant vehicle. The Defendant’s employee, instead of diesel, provided an employee with gasoline 27.042 liter.

(hereinafter “instant mixed high school”). C.

After the instant confusion, the starting of the instant vehicle was suspended while the Plaintiff was driving the instant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged as above, although a person engaged in the oiling service has the duty of care to verify the kind of fuel used by the vehicle seeking to pay oil, select the fuel suitable for it, the defendant's employees neglected this duty of care to use gasoline as fuel, thereby causing damage to the fuel system device by oiling it on the instant vehicle using gasoline as fuel.

Therefore, the defendant is the employer of the above employees, who is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for the damages caused by the confusion of this case.

B. 1) In full view of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 7, the scope of liability for damages, as a whole, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is necessary to replace fuel tanks, such as fuel tanks, fuel pen, etc., in the event that an accident occurs while driving alone despite being aware of mixed oil, and the plaintiff paid KRW 19,088,630 with repair costs, such as engine, fuel pen, fuel tank, etc. of the vehicle in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the damage equivalent to the automobile repair cost due to the instant mixed oil in this case is the above KRW 19,08,630. 2) According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5.

arrow