logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2020.09.16 2018가단8441
중기수리비
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,535,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 6% per annum from November 13, 2018 to September 16, 2020 for the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in mid-term repair and maintenance business with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a company that owns D mobile vehicle cranes (hereinafter “instant cranes”).

B. On April 30, 2018, around 21:10, 2018, traffic accidents occurred near the National Highway No. 21 in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do. Accordingly, the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff with the repair of the instant scrap on May 2, 2018.

On October 1, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice equivalent to 50,886,000 won for repair items and amount (i.e., value 46,260,000 value-added tax of KRW 46,260,000 for supply value) at repair costs to the Defendant, and issued a tax invoice equivalent to the above amount on October 1, 2018.

C. The Defendant brought the instant tea around October 2018, and did not pay the repair cost up to the date.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1-3, 5-7, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff completed the repair and maintenance of the artist of this case according to the defendant's request for repair. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the repair cost of KRW 50,886,00 (including value-added tax) and damages for delay.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Plaintiff did not properly repair the instant tea, and as a result, the Defendant, as a result of the damage, entrusted the instant tea to another company, incurred more repair costs than the reasonable repair costs of the instant tea. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have a duty to pay the repair costs to the Defendant.

3. Where the motor vehicle maintenance businessman claims the cost of maintenance and maintenance of the motor vehicle, the claim may be accepted as well as the necessary cost of maintenance and the amount of the cost of maintenance and the reasonable amount of the cost of maintenance shall be between the Parties.

arrow