logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.11.17 2019나54030
손해배상(기)
Text

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance that orders payment shall be revoked.

The defendant 3.0

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The parties, etc. 1) The Plaintiff’s purpose is to transport earth and sand, etc., and C25.5 tons of dump trucks (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

(B) 9 per cent of the ownership of the Plaintiff Company upon entering Korea from D (1%) is owned by E, the representative of the Plaintiff Company.

(2) Since 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a vehicle repair contract with the Defendant and entrusted the Defendant with the vehicle repair.

B. On August 16, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) while driving the instant vehicle, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair the vehicle due to the defective noise in the engine; (b) the Defendant’s employees dismantled the instant vehicle in order to repair the instant vehicle; and (c) there was only one romo volts of the instant vehicle (hereinafter “romoV”); and (d) parts of the engine parts were found to have been sculed and modified.

Accordingly, the Defendant completed repair on August 23, 2017 by replacing only part of the instant vehicle engine’s parts.

C. On August 26, 2017, the Plaintiff continued to operate the instant vehicle on the part of the Plaintiff, and became unable to drive the instant vehicle any more due to the occurrence of a Myanmar, and again requested the Defendant to repair the instant vehicle. (ii) As a result of the Defendant’s confirmation, there was less than one V V, which is a light fuel engine engine engine fuel plate (hereinafter “five V V”) of the instant vehicle. The inside of the engine was mixed with light fuel and engine engines.

3) Accordingly, the Defendant replaced the instant vehicle with a new engine, completed repair on September 5, 2017, and delivered the said vehicle to the Plaintiff. C. The Plaintiff, after receiving the instant vehicle from the Defendant, was at least 20km/h while operating the instant vehicle from September 26, 2017, requested repair to the Defendant.

2) Accordingly, the Defendant is an exhaust gas reduction device (SCR) of the instant vehicle.

arrow