beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 94,337,80 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 24, 2010 to August 31, 201.
Reasons
1. The following facts of basic facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 9, 10, 16 (including the branch numbers, if any):
On or around February 12, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase at KRW 530,000,000 a car manufactured in Germany at the 2008 Mzz. (hereinafter “instant car”) from the Defendant, and received the instant car from the Defendant on or around September 1, 2007.
B. On July 22, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) around July 22, 2009, around the signal signal of the instant car, caused an accident, such as the time operation of the instant car in the air; and (b) the air space.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to find out the cause of the accident and to take measures accordingly, and the Defendant recovered the instant car and requested the Plaintiff to investigate the accident at Mesium in Germany. On September 9, 2009, the Defendant sent a report on the accident investigation result to the Defendant that “On the other hand, the Defendant: “On the other hand, the Plaintiff installed RamM and distribution at an external company with the versium or installed the center so as to connect the center so that it would cause damage to the driver’s seatM and distribution line; and the occurrence of the instant accident due to the damage to other devices around it, it shall not cause the guarantee repair.”
Around September 19, 2009, the Defendant sent to Nonparty B a certificate of content that deemed that the Plaintiff was responsible for the occurrence of the instant accident, based on the written result of the said accident, and that B shall be liable for damages arising from the occurrence of the instant accident, and around September 30, 2009, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant as Seoul Central District Court 2009Kahap11680, and filed a motion for the preservation of evidence to clarify the cause of the instant accident.