logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.08.23 2018가단8136
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,018,901 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 17, 2018 to August 23, 2018.

Reasons

If Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 8 through 13 showed the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of leasing construction equipment, such as air compresseders, in the trade name of "C", was in bad faith while performing work at the site of "E plant construction" D in the eropoch D on June 13, 2017, and caused an accident where the part of the excavated machine operated by the defendant was damaged by the wind that shocks the air compressed machines owned by the plaintiff. The above air compression machine was put into work every day, and the plaintiff had no choice but to lease it from other equipment lessor by September 4, 2017, which was completed repair due to the above accident, and the plaintiff paid KRW 59,333,800 as the repair cost of the above equipment, and then paid KRW 39,189,489 as property collateral, and each fact cannot be acknowledged.

According to the above facts, the above accident was caused by the defendant's cause attributable to the defendant, so the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the portion not compensated as insurance money out of the above repair cost and the amount equivalent to the rent during the equipment repair period.

In calculating damages, the defendant asserts that the negligence on the part of the plaintiff (the working party's improper work instruction, etc. employed by the plaintiff) which is one of the causes of the occurrence of the above accident or the expansion of damages should be taken into account. However, according to the aforementioned consistent evidence, the above accident can be recognized as an accident that has broken out a pin, which is caused by the plaintiff's failure to maintain equipment, and therefore, the defendant's assertion on this issue is not acceptable as there is no room to take into account the comparative negligence claimed by the defendant.

Furthermore, according to the above, the amount of damages not compensated out of the repair costs = 19,518,901 = 59,33,800 - 39,814.

arrow