본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.02.11 2012가단6179

1. In relation to the accident described in the separate sheet, the damages liability of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is 6,345.


The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Around January 14:40 on January 29, 2012, B, while driving a C-cab owned by the state trade in the limited partnership company that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and moving to the direction of the Chungcheongnam-nam University located in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu, KAIST, and moving to the direction of the Chungcheongnam-do University, the previous Defendant’s DNA (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) was shocked.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). B.

After the accident of this case, the Defendant received treatment due to the crypitis.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 29-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the principal claim is insignificant in shock caused by the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have suffered bodily injury, such as crypitis due to the instant accident, and the details of pain or treatment inflicted by the Defendant was inflicted on the Defendant due to an accident that occurred prior to the instant accident, and thus, there is no liability to compensate the Defendant for damages.

B. The defendant alleged a counterclaim by the defendant was injured by the light spawn, etc. due to the accident of this case, and thus, the plaintiff is liable to compensate the defendant for the same damages as stated in the purport of the claim under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Articles 750 and 756 of the Civil Act.

3. The occurrence of damage liability;

A. The following circumstances, i.e., Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 7, 12, 13, 21, 22, and 23 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the entire argument as a result of physical examination of Eul University Hospital Head of this Court, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Eul University Hospital Head of this Court, are the following circumstances, namely, the police officers of Daejeon District of Daejeon Police Station who reported to the police after the accident in this case and dispatched to the police station to the extent that the accident in this case occurred, and the defendant is the defendant