logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.15 2019나62569
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 938,00 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from June 14, 2019 to December 15, 2020.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with C on the D motor vehicle owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant on E (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 09:25 on May 4, 2019, the driver of the Defendant-based vehicle was driving the Defendant-based vehicle and was parked in the front of the Frist Group of Gyeonggi-gu while driving the Defendant-based vehicle.

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

On May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 938,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 10, and purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. In full view of the fact that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle. Thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle to compensate for the damage suffered by C due to the accident in this case, and is exempted from liability with the Plaintiff’s insurance money payment within the scope of the insurance money, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act. 2) The Defendant’s claim as to the Defendant’s claim is that the location of the accident in this case is the road be bended toward the left, and the road is connected to the third road, which constitutes a non-fixed intersection, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is illegally parked at the intersection in violation of Article 32 of the Road Traffic Act.

The following circumstances, in other words, the Defendant vehicle, which is recognized by integrating the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 2, 1, 2, and 2, from the location of the instant accident.

arrow