(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.10.31 2019가단121572

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.10.31 2019가단121572

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is an insurer running non-life insurance business, etc., and the defendant is a maintenance business operator running the comprehensive automobile repair business under the trade name of "D."

B. The Defendant requested the owner of a vehicle damaged by a traffic accident to repair the damaged vehicle, and accepted it, and the owner of the vehicle has received insurance money equivalent to the repair cost, which the owner of the vehicle owns against the Plaintiff as the insurer, from the Plaintiff.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The cause of the Plaintiff’s claim (which is the argument to the following purport) the Defendant accepted the damaged vehicle as indicated in the attached Table (which is the data submitted in the attached Form No. 1) from April 2016 to May 2019, and received the insurance money corresponding to the repair cost from the Plaintiff.

However, as stated in the list, the defendant delayed the repair period ("ordinary repair date") exceeding the ordinary repair period, so that the owner of the damaged vehicle can receive rental fees equivalent to the repair period from the plaintiff.

This is an intentional delay of the repair period or an exaggeration of the repair period, and it constitutes a tort that causes damage to the Plaintiff that would not have been spent if the repair was completed within a reasonable period of time.

Attached Form

Since the amount stated in the “heat cost due to the delay in repair” column of the Table is the amount of damage, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 83,59,748 and damages for delay.

3. The Defendant intentionally delayed the repair of the relevant damaged vehicle as stated in the “excess Use Date” column in relation to the repair of the relevant damaged vehicle as indicated in the attached Table.

there is no evidence to acknowledge that the repair period has been exaggerated.

The plaintiff is a material published in E.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2020.05.07 2020고정229

-전주지방법원 2015.01.23 2014노1389

-대전지방법원 2015.11.17 2014가단208344

-수원지방법원 2017.10.18 2017나52788

-수원지방법원 2017.08.09 2017나54067