logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.12.14 2014가단240550
수리비
Text

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 3,844,710 as well as 5% per annum from November 29, 2014 to December 14, 2016 and the next day.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is obligated to pay insurance money between September 2014 and November 201 of the same year by the Defendant.

1. At the request of the insured, etc. of the 35 large-scale vehicle entered in the list, the vehicle was repaired, and the repair cost was claimed to the Defendant.

In this regard, the Plaintiff applied KRW 33,978, and KRW 48,899, respectively, to the Plaintiff’s failure to affix up-to-work papers per hour.

(hereinafter “instant claim subscription”). The Defendant received repair expenses from the Plaintiff and received them as above and received them from the Plaintiff and received them as above, and 21,553 won [21,53 through 24,252 won (hereinafter “instant public notice”) as set forth in the reasonable maintenance charges for automobile insurance No. 2010-560, Jun. 19, 2010, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport announced as of June 19, 201.

) They apply to the lower limit of the Plaintiff’s claim, and paid the remainder repair cost, excluding the items in which the causal relationship with the accident is difficult to be recognized or excessively claimed.

The Plaintiff’s repair cost for the Defendant is calculated as value-added tax (hereinafter “instant calculation method”). The Plaintiff did not enter into a contract with the Defendant on the insurance maintenance cost.

The maximum amount of the public notice of this case is equivalent to 26,799 won per hour calculated by reflecting the inflation rate and profit rate in the upper limit of the public notice of this case.

(hereinafter the Plaintiff’s public notice of this case’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s public notice of this case’s assertion was calculated based on data prior to 2010 and did not reflect the changed situation. Thus, it is not appropriate to apply directly, on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s public notice of this case’s assertion that there was no dispute.

arrow