logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.16 2016나24955
렌트대여료 미지급금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) from August 25, 2011 to March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff lent a siren to the victims who were damaged by the Defendant’s insured vehicle on 82 occasions; (b) the Defendant paid only KRW 35,646,101 out of the Plaintiff’s claim amount of KRW 40,608,200; and (c) the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 4,962,09 (=40,608,200 - 35,646,101) and delay damages therefrom.

2. Where, for the reason that the victim cannot use his/her motor vehicle for a certain period of time due to damage caused by an accident, he/she claims the expenses for borrowing and lending another motor vehicle of the same class and class for the compensation or insurance money from the perpetrator or insurer, the borrowing and lending of the relevant motor vehicle should be required, as well as the amount of the borrowing and lending expenses thereof may be appropriate;

In addition, if there is a dispute between the parties on the necessity of lending and borrowing and the reasonableness of the amount of lending expenses, the burden of proving the assertion is the victim who borrowed the vehicle.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399 Decided February 15, 2013, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case and the purport of the entire pleadings are pertaining to the scope of compensation for damage caused by tort; i.e., the payment standard of vehicle rental fees arising from an automobile accident; and thus, the vehicle rental fees stipulated in the vehicle rental agreement concluded between the car rental business entity and the victim can only be considered as materials and cannot be considered as an absolute basis for payment. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the car rental fees asserted by the Plaintiff are reasonable on the sole basis of the car rental fee table (Evidence A1) of the Plaintiff’s preparation, and ② the Defendant’s insured or the victims are not able to use their cars due to a traffic accident.

arrow