beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following modifications. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Parts to be dried;
A. 2-related grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance
(d) (3) Part of the "expenses for lending and borrowing" (from 4, 9, to 5, 11, 1, 1, 200) shall be applied as follows:
In the event that the victim of the relevant legal doctrine is unable to use a motor vehicle for a certain period of time due to damage caused by an accident, and the perpetrator or insurer claims for the cost of borrowing and lending another motor vehicle of the same class and class for compensation or insurance money, not only the cost of borrowing and lending the motor vehicle in question should be necessary, but also the amount of the cost of borrowing and lending the motor vehicle in question can be accepted. And if there is a dispute between the parties as to the necessity of borrowing and lending and the reasonableness of the cost of borrowing and lending, the burden of proving its assertion is first determined on the cost of borrowing and lending the motor vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013).
From then, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff’s vehicle borrowed from the Plaintiff’s vehicle to pay KRW 14,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s vehicle rent. However, according to the Plaintiff’s 1 and 2’s 1 and 2, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is the engine displacement of KRW 2,979C, 500,000, compared to the engine displacement of KRW 62,500, it can be recognized that the engine displacement of KRW 3,436C, 77,200,000, the engine displacement of KRW 3,436C, 77,200,000. The vehicle borrowed by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s vehicle of the same class from the engine displacement and the ex-factory price of the vehicle.