logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.14 2015나31107
손해배상(기)
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 and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair the instant vehicle on March 31, 2014, as C dump vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) did not walk at the time.

Although the article of the maintenance business operated by the Defendant replaced the fuel pumps of the instant vehicle at around 17:00 on the same day, the instant vehicle did not walk again at around 13:00 on April 1, 2014, the following day.

Accordingly, the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request, replaced the fuel pumps of the instant vehicle directly at least 16:00 on the same day, but the instant vehicle did not go again after 3 days.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable for damages incurred due to the failure of the Plaintiff to repair the instant vehicle properly, and the repair cost and the cost of the Plaintiff’s repair and the cost of the Plaintiff’s repair and the cost of the instant vehicle’s repair, etc. totaling KRW 1,850,00,000, and the delay

B. As to whether the Defendant failed to perform the repair obligation of the instant vehicle under the repair contract, the following circumstances are comprehensively considered, namely, ① the article of the mechanic operated by the Defendant and the Defendant’s replacement of the fuel pumps of the instant vehicle more than two times, and ② the Defendant received contact from the Plaintiff that the starting operation of the instant vehicle occurred after the replacement of the fuel pumps, and the cause of the replacement of the fuel pumps can be located in other parts than the fuel pumps, and thus, it was proposed that the Plaintiff was towing the instant vehicle to the maintenance factory for precise inspection. However, the Plaintiff refused it, and ③ the article of the mechanic operated by the Defendant was replaced by the fuel pipe of the instant vehicle around April 7, 2014, and thereafter, the starting operation of the instant vehicle is not visible.

arrow