logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.07.05 2018나50046
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the AM5 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the B Truck vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 14, 2016, around 07:05, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle: (a) found the Defendant’s vehicle driven in the front section of the road No. 1763, 14,000 (hereinafter “instant road”) along the front section of the said road, which was driven in the front section of the said road, from the front section of the said road, and immediately changed the said vehicle to the first line; and (b) conflict with C or another vehicle driven in the first lane of the instant road (hereinafter “victim”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant traffic accident”). Due to the smoke emitted by the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant traffic accident, the visible distance near the location of the accident was considerably limited.

C. In the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from March 18, 2016 to April 19, 2016, paid KRW 5,334,300 in total the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and damaged vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of the judgment and the evidence revealed earlier, the excessive exhaust of Defendant vehicle caused a studio to reduce the long distance from the front to the front time due to the instant traffic accident. Since the long distance from the front time at the time of the instant traffic accident was considerably reduced, the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle is negligent in driving the vehicle without sufficient speed, even though the driver bears the duty of safety driving to prepare for the sudden driving situation, at the time of the instant traffic accident.

The circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the details of the driver’s negligence on the part of the original and the Defendant, and the damaged parts of the original and the Defendant’s vehicle and their forms.

arrow