logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.02 2014나46227
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

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A-car volume (hereinafter “Plaintiff-car”). The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B-si (hereinafter “Defendant-si”).

B. On July 27, 2013, around 03:45, the Plaintiff’s driver drivened the side road of the front side of the D pharmacy located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, and passed the four-distance intersection. The Plaintiff’s driver caused an accident where the part of the Defendant taxi’s left front side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s taxi, which was directed toward the right side of the road of the Plaintiff, was shocked with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s right side (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,924,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that, while the Plaintiff’s driver was negligent in driving a one-way road, the Plaintiff’s driver violated the duty of due care while driving the intersection with no signal, etc. at the time of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident. In the instant accident, the Defendant taxi driver’s fault ratio is about 20%.

On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the driver of the plaintiff rolling stock was not negligent in driving since the accident of this case occurred by driving the driver of the plaintiff rolling stock on the one-way road, and the driver of the defendant rolling stock was expected to have the plaintiff rolling stock in violation of the direction under the Road Traffic Act and did not have the duty of care to drive.

3. As a motor vehicle driver who is operating a one-way road along his own lane, it is common for other drivers to trust in keeping the other driver’s lane.

arrow