logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.18 2017나33857
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

[Claim]

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 16:20 on September 27, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops on the backway of Seocho-gu Seoul High School, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul High School, reporting that the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is moving back from the rear side of the Defendant’s vehicle. While passing ahead to the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s driver was shocked by the fronter and the gate of the Defendant’s left side

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

On October 19, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,144,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case occurred due to the former negligence of the defendant driver who caused the plaintiff's vehicle by neglecting the duty of front and rear left and left after changing the direction of the accident in the future. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obliged to pay the repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle to the plaintiff who acquired the right of compensation for damages owned by the victim by subrogation in accordance with the subrogation doctrine under Article 682 of the Commercial Act

B. According to the evidence and the purport of the entire argument as above, in the case where the accident in this case took place prior to the direction of the proceeding, the driver of the vehicle in this case and the driver of the vehicle in this case committed the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in this case who neglected the duty of care to examine the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right of the vehicle in this case, if the accident in this case took place, and the driver of the vehicle in this case took place safely. In light of the background of the accident in this case and the part of the accident, etc., the driver of the

arrow