beta
Text
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.
2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 60. 60.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant C and D (hereinafter “Defendant C, etc.”) are employees of the Service Center of the Defendant Company engaged in the business of selling, repairing, and maintaining halog vehicles, which are imported vehicles, and the Plaintiff is the owner of the EWF golf vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).
B. On March 2015, the Plaintiff left home without parking the instant vehicle in front of the entrance of the service center (hereinafter “instant access road”) in order to dispute the issue of free repair of the said vehicle with the employees of the service center and the instant vehicle, and to accomplish the demand for free repair on March 24, 2015.
C. Although it appears that Defendant C et al. committed each act less than that of Defendant C et al. (Evidence B No. 1). In this case, Defendant C does not dispute that it is not his own act, and therefore, it is so decided to present the above facts.
A. On March 24, 2015, around 08:00, he discovered that the instant vehicle was parked on the access road to the instant case and requested the Plaintiff to move the instant vehicle by telephone, but the Plaintiff could not immediately move the instant vehicle.
Defendant C, etc. may have the competent authority take towing measures, etc. under the Road Traffic Act with respect to the instant vehicle parked on the access road of this case, which is a parking-prohibited place. However, if 8:30 minutes a.m. during the opening of the business, the vehicle of this case enters the said service center’s maintenance office (hereinafter “instant maintenance office”). Therefore, if requesting the competent authority for towing measures, etc. of the instant vehicle, etc. to the said service center, it would be likely that the said service center’s work would be much impeded. Accordingly, the Plaintiff would be informed of his intention to move the instant vehicle, and the Defendant Company would incur KRW 60,000 from the transportation cost.