(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.02.15 2014나12639

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.02.15 2014나12639

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal claim expanded by this court, is as follows.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff, as the principal lawsuit, sought confirmation that the Defendant’s obligation to pay the insurance money for non-life damage does not exceed KRW 7,941,452, and the Defendant, as a counterclaim, sought payment of non-life damage (negative) and non-life damage (affirmative damage).

However, the first instance court ruled that the amount of temporary closure damages 30,604,260 as well as 5% per annum from December 26, 2013 to November 6, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment with respect to the principal lawsuit does not have an obligation to pay insurance money, and that the first instance court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the amount of temporary closure damages with respect to the counterclaim, but dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim.

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed on the part against the plaintiff among the main lawsuit and counterclaim, the object of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the non-permanent damage.

2. Facts constituting the premise of the dispute;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C with respect to D concrete pumps (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of E concrete pumps (50m level, hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 25, 2013, C around December 14:10, 2013, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the housing construction site located in the Cheongju-si, the C damaged the Defendant’s vehicle, which was parked behind the direction of the progress, to the repair cost equivalent to KRW 52 million (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The defendant repaired the defendant's vehicle for 23 days from December 25, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Rest damage;

A. The summary of the claim (1) The plaintiff should calculate the amount of temporary disability damage based on the actual income reported by the defendant to the tax authority. The defendant's daily income is 30.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2014.11.06 2014가단155689

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.10 2015가단5233404

-서울남부지방법원 2021.04.22 2020나56252

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.27 2019나60068

-서울남부지방법원 2017.07.07 2016나63208