logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.04.26 2017가단223358
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In fact, the Plaintiff is engaged in the sales business of used cars, and is concurrently engaged in the sales business after purchasing and repairing accident vehicles.

On May 21, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased a passenger car (vehicle No. C; hereinafter “instant vehicle”) destroyed by an accident at early patrolmen, and requested the Defendant to repair the instant vehicle on May 21, 2016, as the introduction of D, a motor vehicle parts supplier. From June 27, 2016 to December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,400,150 in total as the price for parts for the repair of the instant vehicle to D.

On April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff paid 2,500,000 won for repair costs to the Defendant side, and acquired the instant vehicle from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, Eul evidence No. 4, witness D's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the cause of the claim

A. On May 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the vehicle was delivered to the Plaintiff after about 11 months, even though the Defendant agreed to complete repair in one month while taking over the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,870,560 of the repair cost on the ground that the repair of the vehicle was not completed.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,770,710 (=the additional repair cost of KRW 2,500,000 paid to the Defendant for the part payment of KRW 5,400,150) as damages for nonperformance of obligation, and damages for delay.

B. First of all, there is no evidence to support that the Defendant agreed by the Plaintiff to repair the instant vehicle at the time of the request for repair of the said vehicle, and rather, the following circumstances, namely, the damage of the vehicle at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant vehicle, was serious, and the previous repairer did not fit the vehicle.

arrow