logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.12 2016나18095
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. At around 15:30 on March 9, 2016, B, an engineer of the passenger passenger vehicle company (hereinafter “ordinary passenger”), driven the bus of this case (hereinafter “the bus of this case”) and traveling on the road in front of the 2001 foot-gu 265 Sinyang-gu, Annyang-gu, Annyang-gu, Annyang-gu, 2001, and arrived at the bus stop, and let the passengers get out of the bus. On the other hand, the Plaintiff, who was on the delivery of the bus of this case, was injured by the Plaintiff’s arms with the right wheel of the bus of this case with the rear wheels of the bus of this case.

B. The Defendant is a person who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the passenger of the passenger of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that while waiting for the bus above in India, the bus driver was in transit of the roadway by way of any group of persons. The bus driver neglected to conduct a stop at the bus stop but failed to look at the front and rear left, and the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence that the plaintiff proceeded without knowing the fact that the bus goes to the roadway, and even if there was a person who suffered an accident due to the bus, he did not know of the fact that the bus go to the roadway, and therefore, the defendant, the contractor of the car mutual aid related to the bus, is obliged to pay the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 8,961,80,00 for medical expenses, KRW 3,091,80 for the bus, KRW 2870,000 for the car accident compensation in accordance with the above accident, and KRW 3,961,80 for the bus driver.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the above accident occurred after the bus of this case starts normally and the plaintiff came to go to the roadway, so there is no negligence against B, and therefore, the defendant is exempted from liability.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement No. 1 of the judgment, the Plaintiff.

arrow