logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.02 2016나13344
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the vehicle.

B. Around 13:30 on April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff’s driver driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven the Defendant’s vehicle driving the two lanes in the same direction while changing the two lanes from the three lanes near the search intersection in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

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

As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s partner and the mother of the insured B, suffered injury, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 53,982,250 in total with D’s medical expenses and agreed amount until April 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number in case of additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In light of the circumstances surrounding the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant vehicle driver was negligent in neglecting the duty of care and safe driving, and the above Defendant vehicle’s liability ratio is about 30%.

In addition, even if the amount of damages after offsetting the negligence falls short of the treatment costs, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the full amount of the treatment costs in accordance with the defendant's automobile insurance clause.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, the Defendant’s vehicle was ordinarily straight along the two-lanes, and does not seem to have been speeded differently. The Plaintiff’s vehicle, without driving along the three-lanes to two-lanes, caused the instant accident. In light of the driving speed and driving direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle driver is changing the lane.

arrow