logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.07.13 2016가단233629
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,570,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 30, 2016 to August 4, 2016.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle was shocked by total negligence of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle, the Defendant is obligated to pay the repair cost of KRW 47,570,000 paid by the Plaintiff and the delay damages therefrom.

B. Defendant 1) The insured vehicle contacted the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle while changing the vehicle line. The Plaintiff’s insured vehicle neglected its duty of care to prepare for the change of the vehicle line next to the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle, and neglected to act, and the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle also attempted to change the vehicle line with due diligence, the Plaintiff’s fault should be recognized as 30%. 2) Of the repair cost paid by the Plaintiff, the repair cost without causation with the said vehicle is KRW 11,806,200.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the insurer of A again FH 3.0 SC car (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer of B 4.5 tons truck (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 4, 2016, around 10:28, the Defendant’s vehicle was operated at the entrance of the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Han River, and changed from three lanes to four lanes, and the vehicle was shocked from four lanes to the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven earlier.

(c) The KCCCF Co., Ltd. repair the Plaintiff vehicle and claimed repair costs of KRW 50,775,010 (the amount of KRW 37,601,300, KRW 4,381,200, KRW 4,176,600, KRW 615,910, KRW 47,570,00 on June 29, 2016, subject to a review by an adjuster, the Plaintiff exempted the Plaintiff from liability of KRW 43,70,00 (the amount of KRW 36,732,740, KRW 385,90, KRW 3967,00, KRW 280-7, KRW 200, KRW 2005, KRW 405, KRW 6005, KRW 4000 on June 29, 206)

The case Sstoo-Paeng Co., Ltd. is registered as the defendant's trading company.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, Eul's Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination

A. The plaintiff.

arrow