(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.07.11 2016나855 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.07.11 2016나855

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim filed by this court.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is also a person who operates the ELP pests (LPG) seated in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and is also a person who is operated by the Vice Minister of Automatic Tax Affairs. The Defendant is the owner of the D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 23, 2015, the Defendant moved the said vehicle to the future while boarding the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”), around 12:54:35:00,000 (CCTV at the time of the accident) (hereinafter “the instant accident”) using the automatic washing machine (hereinafter “the instant washing machine”). Accordingly, the Defendant’s vehicle conflicts with the machinery within the automatic washing machine and destroyed the said vehicle.

C. The detailed vehicle of this case is operated separately from the non-conceptor machine by means of a mobile type (the structure through which the vehicle enters the vehicle into the automatic washing machine, and the term of the changeer of the vehicle should be parked (P) or neutral (N)), which is not a tunnel type (the structure in which the vehicle passes through the vehicle), and first, if the non-conceptor machine passes through the vehicle and at the same time gets off the non-conceptor, then washing, melting, drying, and especially in the case of construction, the dried wind starts with the part of the engine cover of the vehicle in response to the dried wind, and has the operation principle to build the entire vehicle.

After the accident of this case, the Plaintiff was repaired by the drying wind of the instant detailed devices, and paid the repair cost of KRW 1,328,800 (including value-added tax) to E, a repair business entity.

E. On April 29, 2015, the Defendant received repair of the Defendant’s vehicle destroyed by the instant accident from F, and the repair cost is KRW 346,400, excluding KRW 533,600, the part borne by the automobile insurance company.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, Eul 5, and 6, Gap 6, 7, Eul 4, 7, 8, and 9 are included, below.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2020.05.28 2019나65795

-대구지방법원 2018.07.18 2018나891

-수원지방법원 2019.12.18 2019나58285

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.12 2017나28602

-의정부지방법원 2015.10.23 2015나52016