(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.25 2014가단5322215

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.25 2014가단5322215

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) from June 25, 2014 to Plaintiff A, KRW 23,000,000, and each of them to Plaintiff B and C.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On June 25, 2014, around 13:15, 2014, D operated Emer trucks, and continued to drive two lanes on the national highways No. 38, a two-lane 8-179, which is located in Pyeongtaek-si signal 8-179, on the front side of the front side of the road, and the network F was working on the front side of the said Poter truck. D continued to drive the Poter truck on a two-lane, even though considering these circumstances at approximately 500 meters prior to the front side of the Poter, D continued to drive on a two-lane part of the Poter truck, and this shocked the deceased, and thus, the deceased died (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and Plaintiff B and C are the children of the deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract for the meat truck.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. According to the above findings of recognition of liability, D, a metro truck driver, shall be deemed to have caused the instant accident by negligence, without avoiding it, even if he/she knew of the fact that he/she stops in front of the direction of the proceeding, and therefore, he/she shall be held liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs.

C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability by taking account of the negligence, such as failure to attach a safety sign informing the Deceased that he was engaged in towing operations, etc. However, as seen earlier, D knew of this situation at the front of about 500 meters in the site of the instant accident, and thus, it does not seem that such error by the Deceased contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. Reasons for consolation money 1: the background of the occurrence of the instant accident.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2014.11.20 2014고단1490

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.26 2014가단5344550

-창원지방법원 2016.10.28 2015가단84688

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.24 2016가단5046126

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.28 2014가단165929