logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.05.12 2014나909
차량수리비
Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

Reasons

1. The judgment on this safety defense is a separate company from the defendant that the plaintiff claimed to request the deceased A to repair the vehicle, and thus, the lawsuit of this case against the defendant is unlawful as against a person who is not qualified to be the defendant. However, in the lawsuit of this case as to the performance of this case, the plaintiff is qualified to be the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451, Nov. 28, 1995). The defendant's main safety defense is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made on March 11, 201 through E, etc., by requesting the deceased A to repair the F vehicle operated by the Defendant, and around that time, the deceased A repaired the said vehicle. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,760,000 for the repair cost to the Plaintiff, etc., who is the heir of the network A.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 2, the business registration certificate that the deceased A received from E, etc. for the purpose of identifying the person entitled to claim repair expenses for the above vehicle. It is not against the defendant (registration No. 17561-009487) whose trade name was changed from Dosan General Construction Co., Ltd. to Dosan Construction Co., Ltd. (registration No. 17561-009487), but not against the defendant whose trade name was changed from Dosan Construction Co., Ltd. as of the above repair request date, and thereafter, the company whose trade name was changed to Dosan Construction Co., Ltd. (registration No. 11011-3383976) on August 22, 2012 (registration No. 11011-383976). In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant entrusted the above repair contract to the above defendant E, etc.

At the time of the above request for repair, it was Dosan Construction Co., Ltd., and thereafter, Dosan Construction Co.

arrow