(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.12.06 2019나2022102

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.12.06 2019나2022102

보험금 청구의 소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. In this case, where the defendant basically gives the same argument as that of the court of first instance, the reasoning of this court is as follows: (4) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (3) the part is as it is stated in the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the part is as stated in the column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. The height of the deceased is 128 cm in height of rooftop railing, and the height of the deceased is 170 cm (Evidence No. 3 of the autopsy report (Evidence No. 9) written by the National Police Hospital of Thailand) is stated 160 cm in the body of the deceased. On the other hand, the extension of the deceased’s physical examination report (Evidence No. 9) on the deceased is stated 170 cm in the report of the physical examination of the deceased. However, considering that there was a fall 170 cm in the deceased’s.

On the other hand, however, the deceased is a extreme Madton in a flat spathm, Ebestmp sast, Scar.

Considering the fact that the deceased was a strong nature of the examination, such as setting up diversative sports targets, such as ice, and that the deceased engaged in an act such as putting the body in the outer upper part from a high-rise rail, etc., it can also be anticipated that the deceased would have been able to have tried to move down on a rooftop rail because he was salivated with female students immediately before the accident and tried to move up on the rooftop rail. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that the process that the deceased was on the rooftop rail to sit on the rooftop rail, or the process that the deceased was salpeded on the rooftop rail or a rail to sit on the rooftop rail as above, and that the deceased fell down with the center on the rooftop rail as soon as he fell.

Therefore, the deceased is on the basis of the height of rooftop rail and the difference between the deceased's extension and the separated location.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2019.04.03 2018가단234836

-부산지방법원 2008.10.29.선고 2008가합4110 판결

-부산지방법원 2015.09.17 2015고정1642

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.05 2014가합533086

-부산고등법원 2015.07.08 2015나50927