beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.10 2012가단108946

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 160,719,853 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 25, 2009 to February 10, 2015.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 16:00 on April 25, 2009, B is the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

) On the part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence, who gets left at the center line from E to the exit distance of the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the flus vehicle’s front part of the Flus vehicle, driving from the front line to the front line of the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle, led the Plaintiff to the injury of the Plaintiff, i.e., combined flus vehicle’s front part of the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

3) On October 12, 2007, on October 22:43, 2007, the transfer of the instant case, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as the right-side salt, the right-side pelvis, etc., due to a traffic accident by G drivers’ H vehicles (hereinafter “previous accident”).

(4) On April 12, 2011, the court of first instance (Seoul Central District Court 2009Da37433) (Seoul Central District Court 2009DaDa3743) filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the said H vehicle insurer, and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 191,890,296 and the damages incurred therefrom,” and the appellate court (Seoul Central District Court 201Na21913) revoked part of the judgment of the first instance on June 27, 2013, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 93,941,608 and the damages incurred therefrom. However, the appellate court (Supreme Court 2013Da56563, May 563, 2013) rendered a final judgment in the appellate court, which became final and conclusive on October 11, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “previous Litigation”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is the defendant.