logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.18 2019가단5118978
손해배상(자)
Text

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 3,506,844, KRW 10,642,490 for each of the said money, and each of the said money from April 19, 2019 to September 20.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In fact 1), around 14:00 on April 19, 2019, Dsi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(ii) while driving a vehicle and proceeding three-lanes in front of the F store in Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E, the passenger car of the Plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) which stops due to a yellow change in the signal of the front side of the intersection in the yellow color.

2) The lower part of the instant accident was shocked (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, Plaintiff A sustained injury, such as the influoring of conical signboards between the 5th century-1,000, and the failure of conical signboards between the 5-6-7 and the 5-6-7.

3) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle (based on recognition). The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle (based on recognition), without dispute, Gap’s evidence 1

each entry or video of this Court, the results of the physical examination commission to the head of the H hospital of this Court and the head of the I Hospital, the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts, the plaintiffs were injured due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, and the defendant, who is the mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident in this case.

C. Whether liability is limited or not, the defendant argued that the accident of this case occurred on the wind that the plaintiff A voluntarily stops after the straight signal of the front side of the intersection was changed to yellow, and then the plaintiff A's fault, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, also caused the occurrence or expansion of the damage caused by the accident of this case, and thus, the defendant's responsibility should be limited.

However, the following circumstances, i.e., the electric field signal was changed to yellow, which could have been known by considering the overall purport of the arguments in the entries or images of each evidence mentioned above, and then the Plaintiff operated the brake system immediately, but the vehicle was changed to yellow light before entering the intersection.

arrow