(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.19 2016나76062

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.19 2016나76062

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 4th page of the first instance judgment, the part which was used or added to the seal was placed with a “saved seal car and a container” as “saved seal car and a container.”

Part V of the judgment of the court of first instance states " September 10, 2010 - September 15, 2010" as " September 10, 2015 - September 15, 2015" in Part V.

On the 5th page of the first instance judgment, “The Plaintiff’s car driver C was 0.015% of the blood alcohol content measured at 0.015% as a result of the blood alcohol content measurement conducted against C at the nearby police box after the instant accident.”

On the 5th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "part of the witness F" in the 8th sentence shall be applied to "part of the witness F of the court of first instance and the testimony of witness G of this court".

Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "Mabacon and Construction Guidance Signs" in Part 12 shall be raised to "Construction Guidance Signs".

Parts 5, 17, and 21 of the first instance judgment shall be completed as follows:

“In accordance with the foregoing, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to deem the instant accident to have occurred due to the Defendants’ mistake, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, according to the above facts, the instant accident may be deemed to have occurred due to the Plaintiff’s mistake, which caused the Plaintiff’s driver’s failure to properly grasp the contents of the traffic safety facilities, such as the front-down car and the construction guide sign, by driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle while neglecting the duty of front-time watch in a drinking state.”

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and all appeals against the Defendants by the Plaintiff are dismissed.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.12.20 2017나2015490

-서울북부지방법원 2017.10.18 2016나35619

-서울고등법원 2020.11.18 2019누66318

-광주지방법원 2020.07.24 2019나54862

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.27 2017나17749