beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 26, 2016, around 05:36, the Plaintiff, while driving a vehicle owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and driving a vehicle on the nearby road in the East Sea, collisioned with a large-scale sorash, owned by the Defendant, which was going beyond the above road, while driving the vehicle on the neighboring road in the East Sea.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
The Defendant was operating a street store in the vicinity of the place where the instant accident occurred, but the Defendant was operating the street store.
C. (1) On September 21, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the repair business entity located in Gangseo-gu, and the said maintenance business entity completed the repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on September 28, 2016 and released the Plaintiff’s vehicle. (2) On February 7, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,327,410 to the said repair business entity.
1) On September 21, 2016 through September 28, 2016, the repair period for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff, a company located in Seoul, set sirens KRW 315,000 per day, and paid the Plaintiff a rental fee of KRW 2,520,000 (= KRW 315,000 x 8 days) to the Ebencian Co., Ltd., Ltd. on September 27, 2016.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, Gap’s evidence 1-1 through 4, and Gap’s evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the facts acknowledged in the preceding 1.1., it is reasonable to view that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant, since the accident in this case occurred due to the accident in this case, since the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.
B. As to this, the Defendant could find out the sorain in advance and avoid the collision if the Plaintiff had driven a motor vehicle while driving in and around, and thus, the Defendant could avoid the collision.