(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.01.12 2015가단217235

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.01.12 2015가단217235

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to Plaintiff A for KRW 57,378,485, and KRW 2 million to Plaintiff B, respectively, and each of them on October 19, 2013.

Reasons

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. The occurrence of liability (1) was due to the negligence that Defendant C operated D fishing buses around 06:50 on October 19, 2013, and neglected the duty to stop the bus while driving two-lanes in front of the entrance of Pyeongtaek-si in front of the 3-lane. At the time, Plaintiff C’s Espke car stopped due to a signal change from the front side of the bus driving direction at the time of the bus operation, and caused the injury of Plaintiff A to the right side of the bus, and caused the damage to the above car (hereinafter “instant accident”); ② Plaintiff B is the wife of the Plaintiff; Defendant B is liable for damages to the above bus’s mutual aid agreement, which was concluded between the parties to the mutual aid project; Defendant C’s driver, who was the owner of the bus, is not liable for damages to the aforementioned bus; Defendant C’s assertion and video number 1 through 38; and Defendant C is jointly liable for damages to the aforementioned bus.

B. The Defendants’ limitation of liability asserted that the Plaintiff’s car should be limited to the Defendants’ liability by taking into account the instant accident occurred at the wind which the Plaintiff’s car was cut down immediately after the rapid change of the car from the Defendant bus front. However, according to the black picture (Evidence A 13) in which the process of the instant accident was taken, the Plaintiff’s car was found to have stopped according to the stop signal of the front intersection after the lapse of 3-4 seconds after changing the vehicle from the first lane to the second lane, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ above assertion, and it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the Plaintiff’s car stopped according to the stop signal. Thus, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

2. The following facts shall be included in the scope of damages:

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.12 2017가단95243

-울산지방법원 2020.08.21 2019가단115258

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.25 2013가단248094

-서울서부지방법원 2017.11.09 2017가단203223

-인천지방법원 2017.08.29 2017나223