beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. During the repair of the instant vehicle, the Defendant asserted that the instant vehicle was repaired by the Plaintiff without any explanation as to the cause of the breakdown, whether it is possible to repair the instant vehicle, and how to repair the instant vehicle. Since the Defendant did not fulfill the duty of explanation, which is an incidental duty under the instant vehicle maintenance contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 1,00,000 to the Plaintiff for mental damages arising therefrom.
B. In full view of the facts and the evidence admitted earlier, the Defendant appears to have known the Plaintiff of the diagnosis process and progress status of the cause of the breakdown, and the Plaintiff also made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was notified of the repair status by the Defendant during the two-month period in which the Plaintiff was responsible for the instant vehicle. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to explain during the repair process of the instant vehicle.
In full view of the following circumstances, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it [b], namely, the Defendant’s endeavored to find the cause of the failure and the method of repairing the present vehicle after receiving a request for repair of the present vehicle, but failed to find it, and thus, requested the FFF Specialized Maintenance Office to diagnose and repair the vehicle; the first deliberation specialized examination commissioner’s opinion that it is necessary to dismantle the engine because it is difficult to accurately diagnose the present condition; and that there is a possibility that considerable expenses will be incurred in the event of decomposition of the engine to accurately diagnose the present vehicle, the Defendant could not find out the cause of the failure and the method of repairing the present vehicle.