logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.04 2018나54936
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On February 4, 2018, around 13:53 on February 4, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle: (a) at the parking lot south of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Gyeyang-dong Squared with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was parked in the parking zone while driving one-way paths between the building and the parking zone; (b) the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On February 14, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 7,150,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The following circumstances reveal that the error ratio of the instant accident was recognized and the entire purport of the pleadings was revealed as to the evidence revealed. In other words, the Defendant vehicle driver is obliged to drive the vehicle in a parking zone, even though he has a duty of care to conduct a safe driving by properly examining the movement of other vehicles driving the above way, the vehicle driving along the above way is entering the parking zone without properly examining the existence and movement of the vehicle driving along the above way, and the vehicle driver is obliged to drive the vehicle from the parking zone from time to time because many other vehicles are parked in the parking zone installed on the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle while driving the vehicle in the above way of one-way traffic, and thus, it is difficult to know or know that there are other vehicles from time to time depart from the parking zone, and even though he is obliged to drive the vehicle moving along the parking zone by examining the movement of the vehicle moving along the above way in the parking zone.

arrow