logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.17 2017가단5148487
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 26,038,936 and each of them shall be 5% per annum from January 29, 2017 to October 17, 2018.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) C is a D bus around 18:50 on January 29, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

)를 운전하여 충북 영동군 산이비탄로6 부근 편도 2차로 중 1차로를 영동읍 쪽에서 옥천 쪽으로 진행하던 중 도로 위에서 양팔을 벌리고 서 있던 E를 조수석 쪽 앞부분으로 충격하였고, 그 충격으로 튕겨나간 E를 2차로를 진행하던 F 차량이 다시 충격하였다(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라고 한다

2) On the same day, E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died at around 20:51 on the same day.

3) The plaintiffs are children of the deceased, and the defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for the defendant's vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings).

B. According to the above recognition of liability, as the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident as a mutual aid business operator of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances.

The defendant asserts that the deceased was suffering from two arms at night, and the driver of the defendant's vehicle could not avoid collision with the deceased by finding the deceased immediately before the collision. Therefore, the defendant should be exempted from liability because there was no negligence on the part of the accident in this case.

However, the Defendant’s driver was negligent in operating a road with a restricted speed of 80km/h at a speed exceeding 102 km/h in order to speed the road so that it can be speeded. While the time of the accident occurred at night, if the Defendant’s driver did not interfere with the restricted speed and did not perform his/her duty at all times, it would have been able to avoid the collision with the Deceased or to reduce damage through the operation or avoidance.

The defendant.

arrow