logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.08 2013가단258725
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 111,717,95 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 15, 2013 to October 8, 2015.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The Plaintiff, at around 18:10 on June 15, 2013, boarded the front line of D private taxi driven by C, and moved to a cafeteria located in the back seat of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, E, etc., along with the day on which the Plaintiff was on board the rear seat of D private taxi, and then calculated the taxi fee through the steering gate, which is opened at the si and opened at the si. While calculating the taxi fee, the Plaintiff sustained a part of the cab’s gate by left hand. However, during the day on which the cab was on the back seat of the si, the 3 knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid contract for the above taxi.

[Evidence] Items A, 1, 2, 3, and 7-6, 7, 12, 13, 24, Eul 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a passenger, was injured due to the instant accident that occurred during the operation of the said taxi, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident.

The Defendant asserts that the instant accident does not constitute an accident due to the operation of a taxi, and thus, is not responsible for compensating for damages therefrom. However, the instant accident is an accident in which the passengers on the rear seat of the taxi get off from the taxi and close the rear door of the taxi, and can be seen as an accident due to the operation of the taxi, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

The Defendant alleged that the taxi driver C was not responsible for compensating for damages caused by the instant accident, since there was no negligence with respect to the instant accident, but the Plaintiff, a taxi passenger, was injured by the instant accident.

arrow