logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.10 2015나44271
채무부존재확인
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

D. D. within C in Pyeongtaek-si B at around 14:48 on July 7, 2014.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the E vehicle (hereinafter “E”), and the Defendant entered in the owner’s register of D vehicle (hereinafter “victim”) into the automobile comprehensive insurance contract, and the 1% share of the damaged vehicle is owned by F, not the Defendant, but there is no dispute as to the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the owner of the entire damaged vehicle.

(b).

On July 7, 2014, at around 14:48 on July 7, 2014, the damaged vehicles parked in the parking lot C located in Pyeongtaek-si B were shocked.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

From July 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) during 24 days from July 22, 2014, concealed the R8 vehicles; and (b) the cost incurred therefrom is KRW 23 million.

On November 30, 2014, the defendant completed the repair of the damaged vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The repair cost that the Plaintiff can recognize for the damaged vehicle is KRW 4,350,200 based on the restoration of the fronter and the left-hand screen penter. 2) In addition, insofar as the Defendant cannot be deemed to have actually provided a loan, the Plaintiff is merely obligated to pay the Defendant a transportation cost of KRW 421,200 equivalent to the transportation cost of KRW 30% for the ordinary repair period of 3 days under the automobile insurance contract, not for the lending cost.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay insurance money, such as repair costs, to the Defendant does not exist more than KRW 4,771,400 (= KRW 4,350,200). B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) Considering that the damaged vehicle is a vehicle which has been installed by bringing more than KRW 100,000 in excess of KRW 100,000, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay insurance money, such as repair costs, to the Defendant, should replace the damaged vehicle’s entirety with the damaged vehicle to completely restore the damaged vehicle. From October 6, 2014 to November 30, 2014.

arrow