2013 Gaz. 25067 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligation

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

December 17, 2013

January 21, 2014

1. The plaintiff confirmed that there is no liability of the plaintiff for damages against the defendant on the ground that the defendant's motor vehicle was scrapped on June of the same year due to the plaintiff's erroneous repair of the motor vehicle*********** because of the plaintiff's erroneous repair of the motor vehicle in April 2013.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Overall relations concerning the progress of automobile repair and scrapping;

○ The Defendant is the owner of Seoul*********** year X motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “motor vehicle of this case”). The Plaintiff is the owner of the motor vehicle of this case*** City*** part of the motor vehicle in the Gu**** industrial enterprise **.

○ The Defendant, while operating the instant motor vehicle around July 2012, had a power to repair the fronter, air container, compact presses, and Radon part of the instant motor vehicle by causing drilling accidents, and had a power to replace an engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine with the total mileage 92,179 km on November 13, 2012.

○ In April 2013, while driving the instant vehicle under the influence of 95,020 km in total, the insurer who entered into the automobile insurance with the Defendant, received the Defendant’s report on the day, and requested the Plaintiff to repair the instant vehicle. * The Defendant also requested the Plaintiff to identify and repair the cause of the breakdown. The employee in charge of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to diagnose the breakdown caused by the click disc click, and present an estimate of repair cost, the Defendant asked the repair of the relevant part, and the Defendant also requested the repair of the relevant part. In addition, the staff in charge of the Plaintiff’s repair conducted a periodic verification, such as air pressure, various off-day, and heating amount, etc., while repairing, and inspected the basic matters necessary for the replacement and maintenance of the engine quantity as of the time, and the replacement and maintenance specifications of the click clp in the process of the replacement and maintenance of the click clp.

After the repair, the Plaintiff specifically explained the results of the inspection and the details received to the Defendant, and the Defendant, who did not have any specialized knowledge about the automobile, paid the Plaintiff KRW 778,80, and continued to operate the instant vehicle in the delivery of the vehicle.

○, however, in early June 2013, around 1st century, the Defendant discovered that the noise occurred in the course of operating the instant vehicle, and asked for the search of Seoul****** the Car Center in **. Among them, the Defendant, who operates the automobile part maintenance business, **** the Defendant, because there is no engine error and cooling, and the engine be cut off, etc., the vehicle of this case was scrapped on June 13, 2013, and the Defendant scrapped the instant vehicle.

○ The Defendant filed a civil petition that the Plaintiff’s claim for repair costs is excessive and unreasonable, and subsequently returned KRW 120,000,000, out of the repair cost that the Plaintiff paid. In addition, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to compensate for damages of KRW 1,700,000, which is the balance calculated by deducting KRW 500,000,000 from the value of the instant automobile at the time of the automobile scrapping, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to check the engine errors and cooling water during the immediately preceding repair process due to the lack of engine errors and cooling water and the Plaintiff’s failure to dispose of it mistakenly.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

In the above repair process, the Plaintiff did not mislead the Plaintiff to cause the breakdown of the engine part of the instant vehicle, etc., and there is no reason for the scrapping of the instant vehicle, and thus, sought confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition.

As to this, the defendant guaranteed that the plaintiff had no problem any longer in the operation of the motor vehicle of this case, and that the occurrence of a serious trouble to the extent that it is inevitable to scrap the motor vehicle for about one month, even though there is no room for the third failure, is a cause attributable to the plaintiff who immediately repaired the motor vehicle and guaranteed normal operation. In particular, since the engine engine of this case has broken down due to the engine error and the lack of cooling water, the plaintiff who inspected and confirmed this part during the immediately preceding repair process is responsible for the engine failure.

3. Determination

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims first and denies the fact that the cause of the occurrence of the obligation exists by specifying the claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and burden of proof as to the requirement of the legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998).

First, in full view of the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff is responsible for the Plaintiff, even though there was no further problem in the operation of the instant motor vehicle, as a serious problem occurred, the Plaintiff’s above remarks are limited to ① the Defendant’s primaryly responsible for the repair of the instant motor vehicle due to the instant accident that occurred in April 2013 while taking account of the foregoing recognition, it is difficult to provide a defendive guarantee that the instant motor vehicle will no longer repeat any other problem. In addition, ② The second secondly, in the instant motor vehicle repair request, it is a practice to request the Plaintiff to check the basic matters necessary for periodic verification, such as air pressure, various kinds of weathers, and air conditioners, and the replacement or replacement of the engine within the scope of ordinary practice. As such, the Plaintiff did not need to confirm the number of engine units within the scope of practice, and the replacement or replacement of the engine is not possible during the immediately preceding 30 km period.

It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s determination was erroneous. Moreover, the Plaintiff determined that it is necessary to exchange cooling water while replacing mining ballast, water pumps (caterary cycle pumps) and implemented it. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there was any particular error in the Plaintiff even in the process of checking and replacing incidental expendable goods, such as air pressure, various kinds of errors, and air conditioners.

Next, even though there is no room for the 3rd failure, there is only a lack of engine error, cooling water, etc., and there is no evidence to prove that there was a causal link between the two (the plaintiff's error and the cause of engine failure) of the failure resulting from the 3rd failure, as seen earlier, in light of the allegation that the failure of the 3rd failure is only a cause attributable to the plaintiff who inspected the engine error, cooling water, etc. immediately before that failure, and that there is no evidence to prove that there was a causal link between the two (the plaintiff's error of repair and engine failure).

Therefore, it is difficult to accept all the Defendant’s argument on the facts establishing the Plaintiff’s liability for damages.

(A) If the instant motor vehicle is a new one, it cannot be presumed that there was a substantial fault in the repair process to the repair company immediately preceding the defect of the motor vehicle itself, rather than the defect of the motor vehicle itself. However, since the instant motor vehicle has already been manufactured for ten years, and the total mileage may occur simultaneously with the vehicle with an old-age vehicle that stops at least 100,000 km and its cause is expected to vary, it cannot be easily presumed that there was a mistake that caused the motor vehicle scrapping to the Plaintiff who was immediately in charge of the instant repair. Therefore, it is difficult for the Defendant to prove that there was a defect that caused the motor vehicle scrapping to the Plaintiff who was immediately preceding repair. Therefore, it was difficult for the Defendant to prove the fact by first checking the form of the breakdown, specific cause, etc. of the breakdown, and asking the person who was responsible for the damages if the motor vehicle was scrapped after the scrapping had been scrapped.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, there is no occurrence of the obligation as stated in Paragraph 1 of this Article. In the event that the defendant contests it and claims against the plaintiff, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of non-existence. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and thus, the plaintiff's winning judgment is rendered.

Judges superior to judges;