beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.28 2014가단11165

채무부존재확인

Text

1. B, on October 7, 2013, driving CNS vehicles around 18:12 on October 7, 2013, and is adjacent to the Geumcheon-dong, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) B around October 18:12, 2013: CNS vehicles owned by the CNS media (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”)

) A vehicle was driven by the Plaintiff and was going to go to a sideway in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul. At the time, the Defendant is the Defendant’s vehicle Dpoter (hereinafter “Defendant”) on the front section of the Plaintiff vehicle.

(B) While proceeding, the vehicle was stopped at the intermediate point of the luxle road. However, B was proceeding as it was without neglecting the luxian si and received the rear part of the Defendant vehicle as the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff is liable for the damages suffered by the Defendant due to the instant accident.

C. In the event that a harmful act restricting liability and the factors on the part of the victim are concurrent to cause or expanded damage, even if the factors on the part of the victim are irrelevant to the causes on the part of the victim, such as the risk of physical personality or disease, the court may apply the legal principles on comparative negligence to determine the amount of compensation in cases where it is contrary to the principle of fairness to compensate the perpetrator for the whole amount of damage in light of the form, degree, etc. of the disease.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da85922, Feb. 11, 2010). The following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Defendant appears to have enjoyed an election campaign that is unreasonable on the spine, such as Edridton, etc. at the time of the instant accident, and in particular, the head of the essential trend changes.