beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of additional payment shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Around 20:00 on March 6, 2015, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was boarding a taxi operated by the Plaintiff in the Busan So-gu Doo-gu, Busan, and demanded the Plaintiff to operate the taxi to Kimhae-si c.
However, while the plaintiff was operated, the defendant set the Guto the above taxi and the plaintiff's clothes were added to the above taxi and the plaintiff's clothes. Although the plaintiff left the defendant to the above destination, the defendant did not pay the plaintiff the costs of the taxi.
Due to the Defendant’s failure to do business for a day, the Plaintiff suffered business damage of KRW 200,00,000,000, other than the Plaintiff’s fee of KRW 110,000,000, the Plaintiff’s fee of washing clothes, KRW 13,00,00, the cost of replacing the parts of the vehicle due to Gu soil, and KRW 87,70,70,00, the cost of filing a complaint against the Defendant for the issuance of the complaint against the Defendant, and KRW 4,80,00,00,00, the Kim Sea-U-U.S. road.
In addition, the plaintiff suffered mental damage, and the sum of the consolation money of 2.5 million won and the above amount of damage on property in order to recover mental damage, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for 3,013,500 won.
2. Determination
A. On March 6, 2015, the part of the Defendant’s claim for the cost of taxi expenses, tea expenses, and clothes laundry that the Defendant boarded in the taxi operated by the Plaintiff in the Busan Seo-dong, Busan, and left the Defendant’s house located in Kimhae, the Defendant’s vehicle located in the Plaintiff’s taxi while driving the taxi, and the fact that the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the taxi fee does not conflict between the parties.
In addition, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, and 3, the plaintiff paid KRW 8,000 with the cost of washing clothes for 110,00 won and the cost of washing clothes on March 7, 2015, and the fact that the plaintiff notified the defendant's destination at the time of boarding the taxi as KRW 35,00 is the plaintiff.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is the taxi fee and the defendant.