beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 30,768,920 won and the period from December 31, 2015 to January 16, 2018.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the steel cutting processing and surface treatment steel production business. The Defendant Eastern Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. is an insurer of automobile insurance purchased by the Defendant, and the Defendant A is the driver of B cargo vehicle that purchased automobile insurance.
B. Defendant A destroyed a Japanese MADA shower (H-3065TY) owned by the Plaintiff while driving the said vehicle within the Plaintiff’s factory around 10:00 on December 31, 2015.
C. The instant machines are used in the precision processing of steel plates by cutting them in a certain size, and the Plaintiff mainly engaged in the business of processing and supplying steel plates using the instant machines.
The instant machinery was repaired until May 31, 2016, and the Defendant East Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd paid KRW 17,400,000 as repair costs and transportation costs.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Where a business item is destroyed by a tort within the scope of compensation for damages, the profits that would have been incurred if a business had been continued by using the goods for a reasonable period necessary to prepare other goods, i.e., losses for business suspension, as far as it is possible to prove such losses, shall be compensated separately from the exchange value, and where a business item is partially damaged, it shall be deemed that the same applies to losses for business suspension for a reasonable period necessary to repair.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Da82507, Mar. 18, 2004). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff requested processing to another processing unit in order to abide by the delivery deadline. Thus, the Plaintiff was not engaged in steel processing at the Plaintiff’s factory and to another processing unit.