logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.11 2019나8398
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

1..

Reasons

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, at around 14:25 July 31, 2018 at the time of the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident, and around 14:25:5-lanes in Seoul, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, the bus stops located in five laness in the five lanes of the above Part E, and entered the three lanes. The fact that there is no dispute over the payment of the insurance proceeds paid to the Plaintiff’s vehicle operating in the three lanes of the same direction, 1,436,370,00 (based on recognition), the self-paid vehicle of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle of the first 30,00 (based on recognition)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and sought the full amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff, and damages for delay from the day following the payment date.

B. First, in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant driver’s negligence is 100%, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver was negligent at least 45% in relation to the instant accident, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is not acceptable, since it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s negligence was committed at least 45% in relation to the instant accident, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver was not negligent, in light of the following: (a) the health stand, the background leading up to the accident indicated in the record; (b) the degree of collision and shock; and (c) the Defendant’s vehicle entered the middle point of the said three-lane road.

C. However, the Plaintiff’s insurance money of this case was paid on the basis of its own vehicle damage security, and its own vehicle damage security has a compensatory nature of the insurance premium paid by the policyholder to the insurer up to time against the occurrence of the insurance accident. It is separate from the liability for damages borne by the Defendant’s driver, and the Plaintiff is the insured’s own share out of the amount of

arrow