logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.20 2019가단5098524
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 49,306,080 as well as 5% per annum from July 17, 2018 to May 20, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with D, including an indemnity insurance agreement (200 million won per person) with respect to a non-insurance motor vehicle with respect to D-owned E motor vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant insurance”). (b)

On July 26, 2017, the Defendant, as its owner around 01:42, carried D’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s G located in Jung-gu, Seoul, from the shooting distance front of the H association located in Jung-gu, Seoul, with the same underground road located on the same as the left-hand side of the four-lane road in the middle of the straight basin. On the opposite direction, the Defendant caused an accident in violation of the signal, and the Defendant suffered injury by the F, who was on the back son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 61,632,600 (a total of KRW 13,632,600 for medical expenses, and KRW 48 million for non-business suspension expenses) to the insured insured by the foregoing non-life-free motor vehicle, as insurance money calculated in accordance with the standard for the payment of insurance money under the terms and conditions from February 12, 2018 to July 16, 2018.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition of the defendant's liability for damages, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the F who gets on the back seat because it caused the accident of this case due to the mistake of violating the signal as a driver of Oralba, etc.

The defendant asserts that F should set its liability in consideration of the circumstances of the boarding on the Obaba, and according to the evidence adopted earlier, F was on the back of Ebaba in the relationship with the defendant, and F was on the back of Ebaba in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the situation and contents of the accident as seen earlier, the background leading up to the fabacing, the age of the defendant and F, and the degree of damage.

arrow