logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.01.20 2015가단102378
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,241,429 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from February 10, 2015 to January 20, 2016.

Reasons

1. On January 5, 2015, around 07:00, at the street in front of the construction site for the building of the Daejeon Middle-gu B apartment, D, an insured vehicle of the Defendant, had destroyed parts, such as the part of the Plaintiff’s E concrete pumps (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), which was working at the front of the Defendant’s vehicle while moving back the Defendant vehicle, by shocking the front part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff’s E concrete pumps vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

Plaintiff

In ordinary, it is necessary to exchange and repair parts, such as the above 10 to 12 days of the vehicle, but the 23-day amount was generated from January 19, 2015 to February 10, 2015, and the 3,850,000 won (including value-added tax) was required at the repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 3, and 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since it is impossible to lease the Plaintiff’s vehicle for 23 days a day due to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s claim is that the sum of KRW 25,300,000 and the repair cost of KRW 3,850,000, such as the above-mentioned occupant, etc., including KRW 29,150,000,000, and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s business losses should be calculated based on the Plaintiff’s daily income reported by the National Tax Service in 2014.

In addition, it shall be calculated on the basis of ordinary repair period (10-12 days), and it shall not be calculated on the basis of actual repair period.

3.The borrower may claim the payment of rent in lieu of temporary rental damages, as damages during the period of repairing the judged motor vehicle, because the temporary rental and the rent are selective in a selective relationship.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da6112 delivered on May 12, 1992). However, in the case of lending and borrowing fees, the victim should be presumed to have actually lent another motor vehicle, and such lending and lending is not only necessary.

arrow