logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.13 2019나1144
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is a local government that manages the E-distance Intersection in front of the Sinpo City D (hereinafter “instant road”).

B. At around 15:37 on December 19, 2015, G vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “victims”) shocked the steel lines of on-and-off signal at the left side to avoid a collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is going to the left left on the right side of the damaged vehicle while going to the right side of the instant road, and subsequently fell from the road while moving to the right side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The instant accident resulted in the death of F, a driver of the victimized vehicle, and the damaged vehicle was entirely damaged.

C. By October 18, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 178,300,000 as agreed money due to the instant accident to F’s heir, and KRW 196,30,000 as insurance money for the damage of the damaged vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence No. 8 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 did not install speed prevention facilities, such as antidrums and speed spons, etc., on the instant road. If the damaged vehicle did not interfere with the view due to trees on the instant road or could have known in advance the existence of the Plaintiff vehicle through proper anti-sponsings, it could prevent the collision. Even if the collision was installed even if the protective fence was installed, the result of the driver’s death could be prevented.

Nevertheless, there is a defect in the management of the road of this case, which did not take measures to ensure the view of the city, or install speed preventive facilities, protective fences, etc., and the occurrence of the accident of this case and damage to the road of this case.

arrow