(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.16 2015나6653

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 2015.10.16 2015나6653

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 4,101,760 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from May 21, 2014 to October 16, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with D as the insured with respect to the E-vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. G, as the husband of F, while managing and operating the Plaintiff’s vehicle at ordinary time, parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the imotour in front of the imotour located in Ilyang-gu, Ilyang-gu, U.S. on April 27, 2014, and set the key of the vehicle onto the vehicle and set it down at the door without locking. The Defendant discovered the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked at around 02:00 on April 28, 2014, and cut off the Plaintiff’s vehicle by driving it.

C. After that, on May 7, 2014, in order to return the Plaintiff’s vehicle to a place where it was stolen, the Defendant driven the Plaintiff vehicle, and moved back at the K cafeteria parking lot located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, and shocked the back part of the L vehicle parked in the above place (hereinafter “victim”) with the back part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). D.

On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,671,600 in total, and KRW 455,600 in the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident and the Defendant’s theft of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which caused the Plaintiff’s failure to use the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as the respective insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including each branch number for which a branch number is attached), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to steal the plaintiff's vehicle and compensate the victims for all damages incurred as the tortfeasor who caused the accident in this case.

However, the plaintiff, the insurer of the plaintiff vehicle, was exempted from liability by paying insurance money to the victims as above.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.16 2015나12917

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.15 2015나39578

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.30 2015나686

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.29 2015나20055

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.15 2015나29489