beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff’s dyp truck (hereinafter “victim”) operated by the Defendant was shocked on January 25, 2018, while driving the said vehicle on or around 05:00 on January 25, 2018, by neglecting the duty of the front-time watch and neglecting the duty of the front-time watch.
(hereinafter “instant accident.” Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Defendant for the damages of KRW 28,052,870 due to the instant accident (i.e., the repair cost of KRW 15,290,370 for the business suspension damage of KRW 7,762,50 for the automobile repair cost of KRW 7,762,00 for the damages of KRW 5,00 for the consolation money).
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The case where an automobile operator is liable to compensate for damage pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “automobile Accident Compensation Act”) is when he/she killed or injured another person due to the operation of the automobile, and the physical damage incurred by the operation of the automobile is not liable for damage under the Automobile Accident Compensation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da56728, Jul. 27, 2006). As the owner of a sea-going vehicle, the Defendant is not liable to compensate for damage as to physical damage, such as the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle, etc. due to the instant accident.
B. The Plaintiff is recognized as the operator of the vehicle under Article 3 of the Automobile Loss Act. Thus, the Defendant’s negligence in itself is recognized as to the accident of this case, and the Defendant shall not lend a vehicle to a person who is the owner of the vehicle and is not insured to compensate the other party for the damage caused by the accident of this case, and when the Defendant lends a vehicle to a third party, the Plaintiff is obligated to direct and supervise the vehicle to drive the vehicle and to pay attention to the operation of the vehicle, such as the driving of the vehicle and the driving of the vehicle, but the Plaintiff is negligent in lending the vehicle to C in violation of such duty.