logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.18 2015나31673
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 has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Company”).

B. On December 1, 2014, around 09:15, an accident occurred between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle that had been driven in the underground parking lot located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

C. On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 6,650,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case is caused by the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the total amount equivalent to the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as a reimbursement amount, since the accident of this case is caused by the driver of the defendant vehicle, since the plaintiff's vehicle, who was in the office of the underground parking lot, stopped to the left-hand left-hand and stopped the defendant vehicle.

The defendant, when entering a parking lot, etc., has a duty to check and proceed with safety after stop, but the plaintiff and the defendant's vehicle were in contact with each other due to negligence in failing to perform the above duty while driving at the parking lot entrance. The defendant's vehicle was set on the right side of the plaintiff's vehicle driven at the entrance of the parking lot in order to drive the vehicle, but the plaintiff's vehicle was driven by a virtual central line, and the driver's negligence on the part of the defendant's driver is merely 20%, and there is no obligation to pay compensation in excess of this duty.

3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 as a whole of images and pleadings, are the access roads to the underground parking lot.

arrow