logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.01.09 2018나103233
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

On September 4, 2016, the Plaintiff exchanged the Plaintiff’s “RSV4” Oba with D’s “YZF-R1SP Spanish social” (hereinafter “the instant Oba”), through C, an employee of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff received the instant Obane from the Defendant using the “Magic Dam Ba” part from D after the said exchange.

After the repair, the Plaintiff was commuting to and from work via the instant Oba, and around September 7, 2016, the third day (hereinafter “the first accident”). The Plaintiff, after the first accident, was repaired the instant Oba (hereinafter “the second accident”) by the Defendant. On September 2016, the Plaintiff had been operating with the instant Oba from the Defendant during the operation of the instant Oba (hereinafter “the second accident”).

After the second accident, the plaintiff had the defendant repair the Oral Ba of this case again.

However, there is a dispute with the Defendant in the course of repair, and the Plaintiff left the business entity E around December 1, 2016 with the repair of the instant Obane.

As a result, one of the engine accessories of the Obama was diagnosed that the engine was damaged between the engine showers and the route.

On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 465,000 to the Defendant at its repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff did not accept the plaintiff's assertion of Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 1-2-2, Gap evidence 2-1-2, Gap evidence 3-1-2, Gap evidence 4-1-24, Gap evidence 5,6, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 as a whole, or the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion of the parties to the plaintiff's assertion of Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 24, Gap evidence 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, and thereby the plaintiff'

The Plaintiff believed that the repair of the Obane in this case was completed, and operated the Obane in this case.

arrow