beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. From March 6, 2012 to March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff leased a siren during the repair period to the victims who were damaged by the Defendant’s insured vehicles over 37 times, and claimed the Defendant for KRW 21,626,980 in total, and the Defendant considered the Internet discount fee of a large-scale rent-a-car business entity holding a nationwide business network as the ordinary rental fee, and paid only KRW 18,192,60 in total, to the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties.
2. The Plaintiff seeks payment of the rental fee of KRW 2,762,30 (=21,626,980) to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 18,192,60).
In a case where, for the reason that the victim could not use a motor vehicle for a certain period of time due to the damage caused by an accident, the expenses for borrowing and lending another motor vehicle of the same class and class for the same period is claimed against the perpetrator or insurer as compensation or insurance money, the borrowing and lending of the motor vehicle in question should be necessary, as well as the amount of the borrowing and lending expenses, and the claim may be accepted.
In addition, if there is a dispute between the parties as to the necessity of lending and borrowing and the reasonableness of the cost of borrowing and lending, the burden of proving the assertion is the victim who has rented out a motor vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013). In other words, the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings in the items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 1, 1, the payment standard of vehicle rental fees due to an accident of a motor vehicle is about the scope of tort liability, and therefore, the payment standard of vehicle rental fees under the vehicle rental contract concluded between a vehicle rental business operator and the victim is about the scope of tort liability. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there is an absolute basis for payment of the amount (vehicle rental fees) under the vehicle rental contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the victim. Thus, the document of the vehicle rental fee